Action Note - Ward Forum - Dingwall and Seaforth (Ward 9)

Meeting held on 18 February 2009

Agenda

Present: Cllr.s Peter Cairns (Chair), Angela MacLean, David Chisholm; Dingwall Community Council, Nigel Greenwood; Muir of Ord Community Council, Tom Davis; Conon Bridge Community Council, Sean Mackenzie, Gordon Lyle; Maryburgh Community Council, Angus Christie; Northern Constabulary, Inspector Matthew Reiss; Highland Council, Alan Geddes, Director of Finance, Neil Gillies, Director of TEC Services, Steve Barron, Director of Housing & Property Services, Geoff Robson, Head of Environment & Development, Liz Cowie, Ward Manager.

1. Welcome

Cllr. Cairns welcomed all to the meeting and asked if those around the table would make introductions. He then explained the format of the meeting for those present and outlined the topic for the evening and how this had been arrived at.

2. Apologies

Cllr. Margaret Paterson; Highland Youth Voice representatives; Ferintosh Community Council, Colin Craig; Conon Bridge Community Council, Alistair MacKinnon.

3. Good News Items

4. Action Note from Previous Meeting

This was approved.

With regard to the Transport Strategy Cllr. MacLean made the point that the period for consultation will be extended. She then advised that following a very successful Forum held in January specifically to address transport issues that had arisen from the November Ward Forum, a local Transport Forum had been proposed and would be set up for the Ward area. She further advised that this may include other communities outwith the Ward.
Action Point on CCTV. Inspector Matthew Reiss addressed this item. He confirmed that The Highland Council owns the equipment and that monitoring is provided at Dingwall Police Station. Scotshield have the contract for maintenance of the CCTV and do attend to call outs fairly promptly. Parts are sometimes required and on occasion the CCTV can be out of operation. In Tain, Fort William and Inverness the screens are monitored and this is paid for by the Common Good. In Dingwall, although not monitored 24/7, all the footage is recorded (unless down for maintenance).

5. Main Topic

Highland Council Budgets/Review of Ward 9 Strategic Priorities.
Alan Geddes, Director of Finance, gave the Forum an overview of Highland Council budgets. He began by giving a definition of Revenue and Capital. Revenue expenditure is essentially the day-to-day expenditure on activities including staffing costs, building costs and covers the debt repayments (mortgages etc). Capital expenditure relates to major infrastructure works such as roads, building of schools, building of care homes etc. Essentially this is the Council’s long term spending on assets to deliver its services. The Council spends around £650M pounds on the revenue side with approximately £300M of this on staff costs. The Highland Council currently has 10,000 employees on the books, a quarter of these are teaching staff. The Highland Council is the biggest employer in the Council’s area. On Capital expenditure the Council is currently spending £75-£80M annually across Housing, Roads, Social Work. In terms of funding Council Tax covers 18-19% of Highland Council’s income. The vast majority of the budget comes from the Scottish Government with an 80%+ of grant settlement. In turn this is funded by the UK Government. Other income is achieved from fees and charges. £40-£50M on this from Social Work and ECS charges, with income also achieved through planning charges. With regard to the budget process it is largely an annual procedure but is now moving to longer term planning. The Revenue budget is set annually. There are legal requirements on the Council to set a date on a particular day within the year when the budget will be confirmed. Priorities are then set. The Highland Council’s ‘Strengthening the Highlands’ sets out the high level aims for the next 3 years. It essentially sets priorities for officers to gear funding towards. The Council also has legal responsibilities. It is required to provide education, schools, social work functions. Geography dictates this in serving communities and given the very large rural area served by Highland, this brings its own challenges. Education is a very large part of the Highland Council budget. This is not to say priorities cannot change. The Highland Council also has to look at efficiencies and this currently amounts to 2% on an annual basis and there is a strict audit process around this. Government grants are fixed. Council Tax is fixed. Income is therefore fixed to a large extent. There is a difficult balance always of providing services with resources available. Finance provides a monitoring service with staff looking at trends and issues which may affect spending priorities. Politicians are then required to take decisions. The Capital budget is slightly different. Previously Capital spending was capped. Four to five years ago the then Scottish Executive brought in new leeway. Council’s could decide on their own priorities. The Council currently spends £46-47M loan charges essentially repaying debt. Grants do also come in from ERDF, the Lottery etc. There is also around £4.5-5M incurred in annual fees and charges. Essentially spending more on the Capital account means more in charges. It is largely all about priorities and options. Question from Angus Christie, Maryburgh Community Council, re budget allocations and savings. This was confirmed as relating to 2009/10. Alan Geddes gave an explanation on budget savings. There is a combination of a top down and a bottom up approach. Grant/income from Council Tax/fees and charges, this has to be balanced against the cost of service provision. The Council does look to enter into long term agreements with, for example the Utility Companies, to try to get better rates. However when contracts end this can result in big hikes with the recent changes to energy market pricing an example of how the picture can change. Angus Christie then highlighted the situation previously where there seemed to be a large amount of spend right at the end of the financial year and that not all of this was deemed to be sensible spend. Alan Geddes responded that due to much better budget processes this was not the case. Sean Mackenzie, Conon Bridge Community Council, then asked if the Council have projects that can be initiated as ‘quick wins’. The example was given of the Capital budget where yes, it would be looked to bring projects forward if the Highland Council was in a position to do so. Nigel Greenwood, Dingwall Community Council, asked about funding for PPP Schools. Where does the budget sit for this? Alan Geddes confirmed that this sits in the revenue budget. There is a gradual increase over a number of years to meet the costs. These are service charges in effect. There are undoubtedly questions around this. The Council in taking the decision to go for PPP contracts had to prove to Auditors and the Scottish Executive that value for money would be achieved. There needed to be a level playing field to ensure VFM achievement. Neil Gillies, Director of TEC Services, highlighted that a bad winter, a flooding event or a major emergency issue arising can eat into balances due to these being totally unforeseen. If an overspend occurs, it will definitely impact on the overall budget. The Highland Council does keep balances, currently recommended by the Director at £2.5M. Capital receipts are generated from time to time as Highland Council is a substantial landowner. These receipts can be used to fund the Capital programme. The ‘spend to save’ scheme was outlined. The Highland Council used to have substantial grants that would come in to fund various projects and initiatives. The current Government has changed this. In return for changing the rules around the grant funding, it does offer more flexibility around spend through the removal of ring fencing. However this can result in some projects not coming forward as a priority. Cllr. MacLean asked about benefit uptake. Alan Geddes responded that as the way the Government allocates funds can be complex, there are a lot of criteria around this including key factors such as deprivation. However higher benefit allocation results in higher grant income and that way the economy benefits. Tom Davis, Muir of Ord Community Council, commented that the Benefit Support Service can be very variable and gave an example of a family member who had found it extremely difficult to determine what benefits were available following an accident. Cllr. David Chisholm felt strongly that there was not a one-stop-shop approach and having to go to a range of different agencies could prove time consuming and dispiriting. There should definitely be a system to make this easier. Tom Davis echoed this and felt that there needed to be a more co-ordinated approach, Cllr. Angela MacLean said that this had been recognised as a problem and has been looked at through CAB agreements being tightened up. Sheila McKandie, Policy and Development Manager, Finance Service, will also assist with this type of issue.

Steve Barron, Director of Housing & Property, then highlighted the aspect of Asset Management. The rationalisation of assets was a key priority for Highland Council. The Highland Council needed to maintain a good profile of assets with the relevant maintenance monies set aside to maintain the property profile. There is definitely scope to adopt more modern ways of working. He confirmed that Dingwall was high on the agenda due to the wide range of office accommodation within the town. In reality there could be two offices in Dingwall when there are currently twenty. Inverness has forty offices. This could be rationalised to a significantly reduced number whilst still providing effective services. It is the case that the Council has not given Asset Management a priority in the past and this shows. However this is now high on the agenda and this has to be addressed as a matter of urgency. Sean Mackenzie, Conon Community Council, asked if the assets being looked at in terms of rationalisation includes schools and village halls. Steve Barron responded that this was not the case and that the first priority was looking at immediate assets such as Council Offices. This was not intended to be a process of cutting facilities. It was intended to be a process of improving the way that Highland Council manages its property profile. The example was given of Wick where currently all office staff were being moved to Market Square resulting in the closure of three other offices. Highland Council is also looking to co-locate with NHS and other public agencies and in general terms, this could provide a much improved service whilst cutting down on building costs.

Strategic Priorities

Cllr. Cairns then moved discussion to the Ward Strategic Priorities and asked the Forum Members if they had any views or suggestions for inclusion on the current programme. Sean Mackenzie, Conon Community Council, asked if a route from Conon Bridge to Muir of Ord had been considered in light of the recent developments with a proposed route from Strathpeffer to Dingwall for cyclists and walkers. Cllr. Cairns welcomed the suggestion and Cllr. Chisholm confirmed that this had been raised and proposed through a recent meeting with TECS on their own Capital Programme. Cllr. Chisholm then asked about Capital funding for the Muir of Ord Railway Bridge and asked for clarification on where this had gone as it had appeared to be allocated in the 2005/06 Capital Budget but did not appear in the programme now. Neil Gillies, Director of TEC Service, gave an overview of the Capital Programme in relation to TEC Services and how this worked. He confirmed that there were complicated issues around the Muir of Ord Railway Bridge. There were three elements that are very complex. Halcrow had tackled with difficulty a way forward but had shown well through the reports now available what could be achieved. Soil sampling was outstanding but this was now in hand. There was a need to work with Network Rail to take the project further forward. In the current programme there is a commitment to take the project as far as possible. The report would then be used to propose the bridge be included in a future Capital Programme. Neil Gillies confirmed that there was a commitment to take the bridge forward to the design stage and confirmed that it would be proposed for this to go forward into the Capital Plan. Cllr. Cairns asked what Muir of Ord Community Council was looking for in terms of the bridge project. Tom Davis, Chair of Muir of Ord Community Council, wanted to see the project essentially on the shelf and ready to go. Neil Gillies committed that The Highland Council would take the project forward to detailed design. Network Rail and Scottish Gas had proved difficult to deal with in taking this project forward. LC then confirmed that a meeting had been set up with Network Rail for Monday 23rd March and that Sam McNaughton, Head of Transport and Infrastructure, would be present at that meeting. The agenda would cover the Dingwall level crossings and the Conon Rail Halt but would also discuss the Muir of Ord Rail Bridge and the questions raised at the Forum could be taken forward with Network Rail at that meeting. With regard to the Conon Rail Halt, Neil Gillies updated that this had been a Hitrans project (the regional transport authority). After the Hitrans Programme was changed through Government projects and priorities changing, this had come back to Highland Council. Planning consent had been granted and there was currently work ongoing on layouts and again, this would be going forward for inclusion in the next Capital Programme. There was money in the budget for design and preparation but not for at this stage for construction (as was with the case with the Muir of Ord Railway Bridge). Again this is a contender for the new Capital Programme. Cllr. Cairns asked if the footpath from the car park in the centre of Conon to the proposed Rail Halt could be looked at now. He confirmed that the local Members had asked for the pathway to be included in the recent round of talks with TECS managers regarding the Capital Programme. Cllr. David Chisholm raised the issue of the Moy Bridge. Neil Gillies confirmed that with 14,000 bridges there was a lot of pressure on the Capital Programme for bridge issues and that the Moy Bridge was on the agenda. Cllr. MacLean then asked for an update on the Kinnairdie link road project in Dingwall. Neil Gillies responded that with planned expansion in Dingwall, they were working with developers to identify planning gain. There was an issue with cash flow with the slowdown of the Dingwall North Development, however it may be incumbent on Highland Council to provide the infrastructure and then to get the monies back from developers via planning gain to progress the situation. Sean Mackenzie, Conon Community Council, asked what guarantees there were in this money being returned. Neil Gillies confirmed that there were legal processes and agreements in place and that there were models around for this. Cllr. MacLean asked if the link road would go ahead. Neil Gillies confirmed that it is in the current programme so it will progress. He then stated that one area that had not had ring-fencing removed is walking and cycling so this is an area that could be looked at.

Geoff Robson, Head of Environment and Development, discussed the Dingwall High Street project and confirmed that a first draft of the report was now available. This will go first to Members at a Ward Business Meeting and then would be circulated for comment. A stakeholders group will be formed. There was then discussion around employment and business growth. HIE is the Economic Development agency but is now concentrating on large scale inward investment. From April this year Highland Council are taking over the Business Gateway function through Highland Opportunity. Cllr. Chisholm highlighted the issue of land for expanding the development of industrial estates and that Muir of Ord was particular example of this. It can be very difficult for Members to approach HIE and Cllr. Chisholm felt that this would have to be taken forward through the Planning Service. Geoff Robson confirmed that planning were in regular dialogue with HIE and that this matter would be raised. Land can be zoned through local planning processes but land owners are key to this process. Economic Forums were now being set up with CBI and the Scottish Council for Development and Industry. Cllr. Cairns highlighted flooding as another issue for the Ward priorities. Neil Gillies confirmed that flood schemes that were previously a 1:100 year return period were now 1:200 year return period. This had implications for insurance and insurance companies. The Highland Council has had to write to insurance companies for clarification around these issues. Gordon Lyle, Conon Community Council, asked if the work being carried out in Conon is going to help with this. It was confirmed that the work is currently being carried out for flood prevention maintenance but to further improve would need additional flood assessments. Geoff Robson urged communities to become engaged with the Inner Moray Firth Plan when the consultation took place for this as it would cover the Ward area. Cllr. Chisholm asked if Community Councils would be given support to upgrade any computer systems for E-planning. Geoff Robson did not think that there would be. Cllr. Cairns drew the subject to a close and thanked all for the contributions given.

6. Community Safety - Northern Constabulary

Inspector Reiss gave a more strategically based overview of developments in relation to the Ward.

Counter terrorism. All forces across Scotland have to look at this issue in the context of their own force area both strategically and operationally. Northern Constabulary are addressing this.
Force amalgamations. This is an issue that comes up every year. One large force for Scotland could be looked at - but this would not be as responsive as smaller forces.
E-crime. A growing area and an area that more and more reports are received on. Focussed largely around the internet. Insp. Reiss referred to the case reported in the press that day of large scale fraud from Nigeria.
Identity fraud. This is a growing area of concern and increasing reports are been received by Police locally.
Alcohol abuse. It is felt that this is with us for a whole generation and that it will take a considerable period of time for education to impact and for this to be turned around.
Increasing elderly population. This can impact in unusual ways such as driving. Three cases of serious accidents dealt with all related to elderly people and driving capability.
Environment. The SEPA website flood indicators highlight potential issues. Discussion around the Police’s role in any major emergency.
Example of new Police Station in Kirkwall. Lots of scope to amalgamate 999 services. Police Stations could be taken into schools. There could be big benefits in sharing costs through premises and services.

Operational Report. In Strathpeffer, the Strathpuffer, a big cycling event went off without incident. The Snowman Rally, another large scale event had gone off without incident. There have been significant drug operations in Easter Ross and the Black Isle. There have been a few good detections of high speed dangerous drivers. Use of unmarked cars has been discussed. Community Councils stated that they were very supportive of any proposal to have unmarked cars introduced again. Conon Community Council would welcome an initiative, or campaign for speeding in the area particularly around the school. Inspector Reiss to take this request forward.

7. LEADER

Development Plan now approved and published. Cllr. Cairns thanked all involved in producing an excellent plan. Meeting scheduled for the Development Partnership for 25th February to discuss next steps, implementation of the plan and encouraging applications to come forward. Also proposals to hold a LEADER launch for the Ward in Dingwall towards the end of March/early April were highlighted.

8. Consultations – Dingwall High Street

An update was given. Suggested amendments had been taken into account. Traffic issues were looked at however it was more a case of revision as opposed to review. Geoff Robson had reported that some tenders were now being received almost 40% below the tender price. This could perhaps result in more work being done for the budget allocated if there were significant savings to be had in contracts; however this could result in a longer contract time. Cllr. Cairns asked if 100% could be achieved. Geoff Robson said it would be looked at but no guarantees could be given. The projected timescales for Dingwall were late August/September through to November. Cllr. MacLean asked about communication with shop owners. Geoff Robson referred to the setting up of a stakeholders group that would involve the business community, Councillors and representatives from key groups. The stakeholder group would meet every 3-4 weeks. Good on-site supervision with named contact points would be essential for a smooth contract.

9. Discretionary Budget Update

An overview of spend and what achieved with the 2008/2009 discretionary budget was given.

10. AOB/topic for Next Ward Forum