Agendas, reports and minutes

Mr H Fraser, Mrs A MacLean, Mrs I Campbell, Mrs I McCallum, Dr I Cockburn, Mrs M Paterson, Mr R Greene, Mr M Rattray, Mr M Finlayson, Mr I Renwick, Mr C Fraser, Mrs F Robertson, Mr G MacKenzie, Dr A Sinclair, Mr A Mackinnon, Mr J Stone

Ms M Morris, Depute Chief Executive/Director of Corporate Development

Mr D Haas, Acting Head of Community and Democratic Engagement 

Ms H Ross, Senior Ward Manager, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

Ms T Luxton, Area Community Services Manager, Skye, Ross and Cromarty

Mr M McIntyre, Area Education Manager, Mid

Ms N Young, Area Education Manager, West 

Mr B MacKinnon, Employability Team Leader, Development and Infrastructure Service

Mr K Masson, Policy Coordinator - Climate Change, Chief Executive’s Service

Ms S Tarrant, Public Relations Officer, Chief Executive’s Service

Mrs R Moir, Principal Administrator, Corporate Development 

Ms L Lee, Committee Administrator, Corporate Development

An asterisk in the margin denotes a recommendation to the Council.  All decisions with no marking in the margin are delegated to the Committee.

Mr H Fraser in the Chair 

Leisgeulan

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Dr D Alston, Mrs J Barclay, Mr J Gordon, Mr D Millar, Mr A Rhind, Ms M Smith and Mrs C Wilson.

Foillseachaidhean Com-pàirt

The Committee NOTED the following declarations of interest:

•Item 4 – Ms A MacLean (non-financial) 

•Item 4 – Mr I Renwick (non-financial)

Maoin Dùbhlan Coimhearsnachd

At its meeting held on 13 March 2013, the Highland Council had considered a report reviewing the operation of the Community Challenge Fund, launched in January 2013, and proposing ways to take the Fund forward.  At that meeting, the Council had agreed that reports on the Fund be taken to each Area Committee.

There had been circulated Report No. SRC-9-14 dated 3 April 2014 by the Depute Chief Executive/Director of Corporate Development providing Members with an opportunity to consider the interest at a local level in the Community Challenge Fund, and also to discuss how the Fund could best be promoted and utilised within the local area.

The report explained that the Fund had been set up with the aim of allowing  local communities to take direct control of services currently provided by the Council, or take ownership of buildings or other assets owned by the Council, where there was worthwhile community benefit to be achieved by the transfer.  Where services were transferred from the Council to a community, an appropriate budget would also be transferred.  The report outlined the relevant eligibility criteria and the operation of the Fund to date, with particular reference to the Skye, Ross and Cromarty area, and summarised the various changes agreed by the Council with a view to making the Fund more accessible and applicants and staff more supported.  Members were also informed that a proposal for provision of a project in Strathpeffer was being developed, with officer support.

Points raised in discussion included that:

• the Fund was a good idea and communities taking forward projects were to be congratulated; however, overall take-up so far had been disappointing 
• as this was a new way of working, involving the breakdown of costs from within large contracts and the development of Service Level Agreements, exit plans, etc., the first projects had taken several months to bring into operation; future projects would progress more quickly 
• mechanisms must be in place should any of the projects fail, particularly if they involved the Council’s statutory or health and safety duties; projects must also not have a negative impact on local businesses 
• recommendations for funding were brought to the full Council for approval; Members were able to input at this point.
• Potential services which Members could envisage communities taking on locally included pavement gritting and the care of St Clement’s Aisle, Dingwall. 

Suggestions as to how to promote and make best use of the Community Challenge Fund included:

• as communities could be wary of taking on risk and liability, the option to run pilot or time-limited projects should be actively promoted; information should be included in the leaflet due to be published in the next few weeks 
• more information as to the types of projects that could be considered, and how to go about applying, should be provided - some Members had been unaware that the Fund could be used in some circumstances for building / restoration schemes; examples of projects which met the criteria would be useful 
• the range of support measures available to communities should be extended to include specific workshops; the support provided to communities should be according to their needs.

The Committee NOTED:

i.  the take up of the Fund to date in Skye, Ross and Cromarty;

ii.  the changes made to the Fund and the approach to promoting the Fund 

    agreed at Council in March 2014; and

iii. the potential services Members could envisage communities taking on locally,

    and the suggestions as to how the Community Challenge Fund could be

    promoted and used to best effect within Skye, Ross and Cromarty, as set

    out above.

Maoin Sgìre Bochd 2014-15

Declarations of Interest:

Mrs A MacLean declared a non-financial interest in this item as a Director of Ross and Cromarty Citizens Advice Bureau, but, having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that her interest did not preclude her involvement in the discussion.

Mr I Renwick declared a non-financial interest in this item as a Director of Skye and Lochalsh Citizens Advice Bureau, but, having applied the test outlined in Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, concluded that his interest did not preclude his involvement in the discussion.

At its meeting on 11 December 2013, the Committee had noted an introduction to the Deprived Area Fund strategic framework and criteria and had agreed that applications in the Skye, Ross and Cromarty Area be invited by 2 January 2014.  At its meeting on 5 February 2014, the Committee had noted that eight applications had been received and would be assessed for eligibility and priority, with recommendations brought to this meeting.

There had been circulated Report No. SRC-10-14 (190kb pdf) dated 15 April 2014 by the Director of Development and Infrastructure setting out the applications received for the Deprived Area Fund for 2014-15, together with the background to the Fund and a summary of applications, assessments and funding recommendations, with reasons stated.  Should Members approve the proposed projects, £38,650 of the £130,000 Fund would remain unallocated.

Attention was drawn to two projects where funding for 2013/14 had been accrued to the current year, due to slippage.  Projects would in future be more closely monitored to allow unused funds to be reallocated to other projects, should slippage occur.  A report would be brought to the Committee later in the year reviewing the existing projects.

In discussion it was commented that, whilst good use was being made of the Fund, this could nonetheless be improved.  The purpose of the funding was to promote employability – projects should take account of best practice, and focus on providing people with knowledge and skills.  Employers (including the Highland Council) and youth workers should be targeted.  

In answer to questions raised, Members were provided with information on how the funding was allocated, how projects were assessed, the funding position with regard to the Made in Tain project, and actions being taken to build community capacity in the Dingwall datazone.  In response to concerns raised that continuing to fund existing projects reduced the sums available for new projects, Members were advised that officers were looking at this issue and a report would be brought to a future meeting of the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Committee.

Members also enquired whether the Fund could be used for projects which would address school attendance in deprived areas.  Strong views were expressed that poor school attendance was a major factor in under-achievement and associated deprivation, and subsequent employability difficulties.  In response, the Employability Team Leader advised that, whilst the Deprived Area Fund was not a long-term funding scheme, so long as the applicant, targeting and time-line of the project met the criteria, such a project could be eligible for funding.  He undertook to explore the proposal with the Council’s Services and partners.

The Committee APPROVED the funding recommendations as set out in the circulated report and AGREED that decisions on the remainder of the Fund in 2014-15 be delegated to the Director of Development and Infrastructure following consultation with the Chair of the Area Committee and appropriate Ward Members.  

The Committee also NOTED that:

i.  a report would be brought to a future meeting on a review of existing

   projects; and

ii. Member suggestions to establish a project addressing poor school

   attendance as a major factor in under-achievement and subsequent

   employability difficulties would be explored with Council Services and 

   partners.

Bochdainn Dùthchail

There had been circulated Report No. SRC-11-14 (34kb pdf) dated 10 April 2014 by the Head of Policy and Reform providing Members with a summary of the methodology and findings of two research studies considering rural poverty published in 2013: A Minimum Income Standard for Remote Rural Scotland and Local Incomes and Poverty in Scotland.

The studies showed that living costs in rural towns and locations in Scotland were higher than in urban areas for food, durable goods, transport, and home energy.  Overall, the level of income required to meet Minimum Living Standards in remote rural Scotland was 10-40% higher than the equivalent in urban UK.  The findings also highlighted the limitations of using the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation to measure poverty in places where population was sparse and where people did not take up the benefits to which they were entitled.  The need to use a range of data when assessing levels of poverty in rural areas, therefore, had been brought to the attention of the Scottish Government.  

The studies’ findings would inform actions which supported Council commitments relating to service provision in remote and rural areas, and Single Outcome Agreements relating to health.  In this regard, a “rural-proofing” tool was being developed that would assess the impact of all new policies on remote and rural populations, to ensure this was taken into consideration.  It was anticipated that this would be used in a manner similar to the existing Equality Impact Assessment process, which allowed the Council to weigh the potential impacts of its various policy proposals in terms of its Equalities obligations, and to take these into account in deciding whether nevertheless to adopt a particular policy, but perhaps put in place appropriate adjustment or mitigation.

During discussion, attention was drawn to the existing Council/Committee report format whereby various standard categories of implications arising from the report’s proposals were listed at its end.  It was proposed that the Council be asked to add, as an additional standard report element, a category confirming that the rural impact had been assessed in relation to the report’s proposals.

Support was expressed for this proposal, while recognising that such an objective would not ultimately fetter the Council’s decision-making process.  It was important, however, that reassurance was given that rural considerations had been fully examined and their impact taken into account when reaching the relevant recommendation/decision.

After discussion, the Committee NOTED:

i.  the findings of both research papers; 

ii.  that a rural proofing tool was under development, assisted by the findings 

    of these research studies; and

iii. that a similar report was being submitted to all Area Committees and to the

    Council.

*   The Committee also AGREED to recommend to the Council that all future Council/Committee reports include an Implications category evidencing that an assessment of the impact on rural areas had been undertaken.

Sealladh Coitcheann air Buidheann Sgoiltean Co-cheangailte

a) Dingwall Academy Associated School Group Overview

Sealladh Coitcheann air Buidheann Sgoiltean Co-cheangailte Acadamaidh Inbhir Pheofharain

There had been circulated Report No. SRC-12-14 (254kb pdf) dated 14 April 2014 by the Director of Education, Culture and Sport, providing an update of key information in relation to the schools within the Dingwall Academy Associated School Group, and providing useful updated links to further information in relation to these schools.

The report contained detailed information on attainment and the findings of the most recent Education Scotland inspection and Standards and Quality Report.  Details of wider achievement and notable successes were provided for all schools within the ASG.  In addition, the report contained statistics on school leavers, school rolls, attendance/absence/exclusions, staffing and funding.  With regard to school buildings, information was provided on suitability, condition and occupancy, as well as current/future investment.

The Committee welcomed and NOTED the positive content of the report.

b) Ullapool High School Associated School Group Overview

Sealladh Coitcheann air Buidheann Sgoiltean Co-cheangailte Àrd-sgoil Ullapuil

There had been circulated Report No. SRC-13-14 (130kb pdf) dated 14 April 2014 by the Director of Education, Culture and Sport, providing an update of key information in relation to the schools within the Ullapool High School Associated School Group, and providing useful updated links to further information in relation to these schools.

The report contained detailed information on attainment and the findings of the most recent Education Scotland inspection and Standards and Quality Report.  Details of wider achievement and notable successes were provided for all schools within the ASG.  In addition, the report contained statistics on school leavers, school rolls, attendance/absence/exclusions, staffing and funding.  With regard to school buildings, information was provided on suitability, condition and occupancy, as well as current/future investment.

The Committee welcomed and NOTED the positive content of the report.

Aithisg Dèanadais a thaobh Taigheadais

There had been circulated Report No. SRC-14-14 (106kb pdf) dated 25 March 2014 by the Director of Community Services providing Members with information on how the Service performed in relation to the Scottish Social Housing Charter and other performance indicators during the first three quarters of 2013/14.

New performance indicators set by the Scottish Housing Regulator had been introduced in April 2013.  A number of these differed from performance indicators previously used by the Council, and it was therefore not possible to report trends in these instances.   Statistics were provided on repairs, tenancy management, rent arrears and homelessness/homeless prevention.  Information on other housing management performance was provided in Appendix 1 to the report.

During discussion, it was clarified that:

• statistics could be checked and provided to Members:

  ~ as to the route by which homelessness was presented to the Council, in

     particular the extent to which this was via Service Points

  ~ giving a breakdown of those presenting by age and by gender 

• availability to a non-custodial parent of sleeping accommodation for visiting children could be a factor in allocation; however, assessment would be on a case-by-case basis and child welfare would be a critical factor 
• contractors working on behalf of the Council were required to adhere to acceptable standards in their interaction with householders and any reported difficulties should be made known to Service management.

The Committee NOTED the position and a request that Member appreciation be conveyed to Area Housing staff for their handling of recent complex cases.

Càrbon Ciallach

a) Update on the Carbon CLEVER Initiative

Fios as Ùr mu Iomairt Càrboin Chiallaich

At its meeting held on 27 June 2013, the Council had agreed to implement and realise the ambition of a Carbon Neutral Inverness in a Low Carbon Highlands by 2025, to be known as the Carbon CLEVER Highlands initiative.

There had been circulated Report No. SRC-15-14 (25kb pdf) dated 9 April 2014 by the Head of Policy and Reform providing Members with an update on the Carbon CLEVER initiative and asking Members to consider how the initiative could be further developed in Skye, Ross and Cromarty.

The report clarified that Carbon CLEVER aimed to capture, co-ordinate and promote the good work being conducted across Highland to reduce carbon emissions and to identify a programme of work to meet the ambitions of the initiative.  Doing this would attract investment to the region, accelerating the transition to a low carbon economy.  Achieving such an ambitious target would require strong engagement from a wide range of stakeholders across the private, public and third sectors, and the residents and communities of Highland.  

The report advised that an Engagement Strategy for Carbon CLEVER would be presented to the Highland Council at its meeting on 11 September 2014 and outlined a number of specific projects in hand, such as:

•the Highland Climate Change Declaration, launched in June 2010 and subsequently signed by 21 Highland organisations, about to be revised and re-launched on 30 April 2014 as the Carbon CLEVER Declaration, designed to encourage and enable signatories to make progress, with less onerous reporting, and to support a collaborative transition towards a low carbon economy 

•Carbon CLEVER Commuting, a new initiative to promote sustainable travel throughout the Highlands as part of Transport Scotland’s Smarter Choices, Smarter Places programme, to be launched in May 2014 

• SMILEGOV, a European project developed around the idea that cooperation between different levels of island governance ( national, regional and local) could have a key role in reaching the 20-20-20 EU climate change targets; a project to be rolled out on the Isle of Skye, with a view to empowering Skye to produce an Island Sustainable Energy Action Plan and effectively manage and reduce its carbon footprint, working closely with the local community and also with the Scottish Islands Federation, Community Energy Scotland and energy and planning officers, as well as other islands such as Bute and Arran.

During discussion, Members raised the following points:

•it was essential to take a holistic view of the Carbon CLEVER programme and to address wider issues such as waste and energy 

•it was important to tackle fuel poverty, particularly in rural areas 

•greater clarity was needed as to how relevant rural statistics were calculated, including the carbon impact of excavations for renewable energy developments 

•more information should be provided as to the policies and practice being developed by other rural agencies, including Forestry Commission Scotland, in relation to carbon emissions 

•it would be beneficial to work with organisations such as the Energy Savings Trust and, more locally, Transitions Black Isle.

The Committee AGREED that the Climate Change Team work with local organisations, stakeholders and community groups to gain an insight into local opportunities and priorities to inform the Carbon CLEVER Action Plan; and NOTED the potential of the SMILEGOV project for Skye.

b) Cycling, Walking and Safer Streets Programme

Rothaireachd, Coiseachd agus Prògram Sràidean nas Sàbhailte

There had been circulated Report No. SRC-16-14 (25kb pdf) dated 3 April 2014 by the Director of Community Services inviting Members to approve a project for the Skye, Ross and Cromarty area to be delivered through the Scottish Government funded Cycling, Walking and Safer Streets (CWSS) Programme.  This programme aimed to encourage sustainable and active travel to school by improving safety and removing barriers to walking and cycling, and to encourage more people to think about their travel decisions.

The report advised that the Highland Council Road Safety Unit worked with Schools to produce a School Travel Plan (STP) that focused on the journey to/from school and demonstrated the school’s all-round commitment to develop Safer Routes to School (SRTS) and to achieve a modal shift on the school run, encouraging healthier and greener methods of travel and supporting the Council’s Carbon CLEVER initiative by reducing carbon emissions.

The report outlined the CWSS funding levels available in 2014-15, the grant award criteria and the application process, together with details of the specific application, for additional cycle storage at Ullapool Primary School, being presented for Members’ consideration.

During discussion, concern was expressed as to the negative impact of inadequate road and pavement maintenance on the success of the CWSS Programme.  It was also clarified that:

•while the terms and conditions of the Scottish Government grant included a request to consider a minimum spend of 36% (and preferably 50%) on cycling related projects, the Council retained control over the detail of its SRTS programme 

•while the Police had an enforcement role in relation to illegal and/or dangerous road use, there were limits to the enforcement action that the Council could take in relation to breach of cycle lanes, particular where these were advisory only 

•an annual programme of relining road markings was in hand.

The Committee APPROVED the Safer Routes to School (SRTS) Project listed in Appendix 1 the report; and NOTED that the Road Safety Unit would continue to work with schools to develop further SRTS Projects for future years.

9. 20mph Speed Limit and Traffic Calming Features - Muir of Ord

Casg Astair 20msu agus Feartan gus Trafaig a Shocrachadh – Am Blàr Dubh

There had been circulated Report No. SRC-17-14 (1018kb pdf) dated 14 April 2014 by the Director of Community Services inviting Members to review the objections and approve the draft Road Traffic Order entitled “The Highland Council (Muir of Ord) (20mph Speed Limit) Order 2014” and the introduction of 2no. chicanes in Muir of Ord.

The report detailed the proposals and their rationale, explaining that, once the new railway bridge was constructed in Muir of Ord on the A862, there would no longer be traffic lights, and that the proposed 20mph speed limit and traffic calming features formed part of a package of measures intended to reduce vehicle speeds through the Village and compensate for the element of traffic calming that the traffic lights had previously provided.  The report also drew attention to the relevant consultation responses and objections received, the officer responses to these and the options available to the Committee.

During discussion, Members raised the following points:

•should the traffic calming measures proposed have a severely negative impact on local residents, it might prove necessary to remove them and find an alternative solution, as was being proposed for an existing pair of speed cushions 

•a number of Members had received representations that the 20mph zone should be extended as far as the bus stop beyond the Ord Arms Hotel; it was recognised that this could require the installation of further traffic calming measures.

The Committee APPROVED:

i.   the draft Road Traffic Order entitled “The Highland Council (Muir of Ord) 

    (20mph Speed Limit) Order 2014”; and

ii.  the 2no. chicanes on the A862 Great North Road.

The Committee also AGREED that officers evaluate extension of the 20mph speed limit zone to an appropriate point, in consultation with local Members, with a report being presented to a future meeting of the Area Committee.

Ainmeachadh Sràide – Leasachaidhean Ùra Taigheadais ann an Inbhir Pheofharain agus Ceasag a Tuath

There had been circulated Report No. SRC-18-14 (15kb pdf) dated 10 April 2014 by the Acting Head of Community and Democratic Engagement concerning the creation of addresses, following consultation with the respective Community Councils and local Members, for new housing developments at Dingwall and North Kessock.

The report explained that, whilst the Council’s Scheme of Delegation delegated the final decision on Street and Building Naming to Area/City Committees, the particular developments under consideration had been nearing completion at the time the naming requests were received, and had been treated as a matter of urgency, in consultation with local Members.  This action now required homologation.

The Committee AGREED to HOMOLOGATE:

i.  the naming of the development at Dingwall (Phase 2 Land West of St 

   Andrews Road, Dingwall) as Carnegie Court and Columba Court; and

ii.  the naming of the development at North Kessock (Phase 4 Bellfield 

    Meadows) as Balnabrath Way and Bronze Heuk.

Members also NOTED that future Area Committee agendas would offer Members the opportunity to scrutinise a further range of reports on Community Services activities within the relevant Area.

Maoin Maith Choitchinn

There had been circulated Report No. SRC/19/14 dated 15/16 April 2014 by the Acting Head of Community and Democratic Engagement providing for consideration a monitoring statement for each the five Common Good Funds: Cromarty SRC-19a-14 (85kb pdf); Dingwall SRC-19b-14 (38kb pdf); Fortrose and Rosemarkie SRC-19c-14 (85kb pdf); Invergordon SRC-19d-14 (21kb pdf); and Tain SRC-19e-14 (30kb pdf).  Members were also invited, for the first time, to set a revenue budget for each Fund for the financial year 2014/15.

In relation to the Tain Common Good Fund (TCGF), the report reminded Members that a refurbishment scheme was planned for the Alexandra Bridge in Tain, with work in preparation for a contract already well advanced.  A funding package to support the original anticipated costs of approximately £200,000 costs was in place and a tender process had been carried out.  Even the most competitive tender responses received, however, had indicated a minimum project out-turn of some £342,450 and thus a significant funding shortfall.  Project details were therefore currently being re-examined and any other possible funding sources re-explored.  The report recommended that a final decision regarding the way forward in relation to the Bridge, and the potential for any additional TCGF contribution, be delegated to the Director of Finance and the Acting Head of Democratic and Community Engagement in consultation with local Ward Members and the Chair of this Committee.  Given this uncertainty, budget figures for the bridge were currently excluded from the proposed TCGF 2014/15 budget, although the likely impact had been considered in the setting of other budget elements.

The Committee NOTED:

i. the 2013/14 Fourth Quarter Monitoring Report in relation to each Fund;

ii. the ongoing survey work in relation to the condition of the Invergordon 

   Town Hall; and

iii. the ongoing work in relation to the refurbishment of the Alexandra Bridge, 

   Tain.

The Committee AGREED:

i. the proposed budgets for each of the Funds;

ii. that a final decision regarding the way forward in relation to the Alexandra 

   Bridge and the potential for any additional Tain Common Good Fund 

   contribution be delegated to the Director of Finance and the Acting Head of

   Democratic and Community Engagement in consultation with local Ward 

   Members and the Chair of this Committee; and

iii. that update reports be brought back to the Committee.

Maoin Maith Choitchinn Inbhir Pheofharain – Tùr Talla a’ Bhaile, Inbhir Pheofharain

There had been circulated Report No. SRC-20-14 (23kb pdf) dated 7 April 2014 by the Acting Head of Community and Democratic Engagement seeking a contribution from the Dingwall Common Good Fund to complete a funding package to carry out external renovations at Dingwall Townhouse Tower.

The report explained that, as a key strand of the Dingwall Conservation Area Regeneration Scheme (CARS), a £550,000 heritage-led regeneration initiative developed in partnership with local stakeholders and launched in 2011, the Council was undertaking a programme of external repair and conservation work to Dingwall Townhouse tower, a Common Good property on Dingwall High Street that had been an important town centre landmark since the eighteenth century.  This work was due to cost £197,560, including professional fees.  The report listed contributions totalling £182,560 confirmed to date from the Highland LEADER 2007-2013 Programme, Historic Scotland and the Highland Council, the latter having committed project funding totalling £95,860.

The Committee APPROVED a contribution of £15,000 from the Dingwall Common Good Fund to complete the £197,560 funding package to carry out external renovations at Dingwall Townhouse Tower, including the restoration of the town clock; and NOTED the Highland Council project funding totalling £95,860.

Geàrr-chunntas

There had been circulated for and were NOTED Minutes of the Skye, Ross and Cromarty Area Committee held on 5 February 2014, which had been approved by the Council on 13 March 2014.