|
PARTNERSHIP BOARD
MINUTES OF CRAIGMILLAR PARTNERSHIP BOARD MEETING
HELD ON 5th SEPTEMBER 2007
AT HAYS BUSINESS CENTRE, HAY
DRIVE, EDINBURGH.
PRESENT
PARTNERSHIP DIRECTORS
Cllr Mike Bridgman - Chair
Cllr Stephen Hawkins - City
of Edinburgh
Council
Cllr Maureen Child - City of Edinburgh
Council
Honor Flynn - Community
Representative
Norrie Davis - Community Representative
Paul Nolan - Community Representative
Willie
McEwan - Craigmillar District Business
Association
ADVISORS
Martin
Gill - PKF
Susan
Mooney - CEC
SfC Neighbourhood Manager
John
Quinn - PARC
Derek Welsh - CEC
Children & Families
IN ATTENDANCE
Neil MacDonald - Broadway Malyan
Cherry McAllister - Broadway Malyan
Neil Scott - Cre8te
Susan Carr - Craigmillar Neighbourhood Alliance
David Walker - Capacity Building Project
Graham
Rowan - Craigmillar
Partnership
John Palmer - Craigmillar Partnership
Faye Gray - Craigmillar Partnership
Gail Ross - Bingham
Resident
Elizabeth Barron - Community
Councillor
OBSERVORS: Residents
of Craigmillar & Bingham
1 APOLOGIES
Apologies
received from Dominique Petitqueux and Mick McNulty
2 Minute of Meeting held
on 27 June 2007
This was agreed as a correct
record, proposed by Norrie seconded by Honor.
Before going on to Matters Arising the Directors were asked
for approval to take item 4 Audited Accounts at this point to allow Martin
Gill of PKF to present his report and leave.
This was agreed.
4 Audited Accounts 31
March 2007
Martin gave a summary to the accounts previously
circulated and went through the report highlighting some relevant issues.
The statement of financial activities on page 16 outlines
the result of a small surplus of £4,682 for the year compared with the
deficit of £15,638 in 2006. This
surplus is split between a restricted deficit of £29,204 and an unrestricted
surplus of £33,886. These results are
reflective of reduced activity in the period which saw income drop from £466k
to £399k however there was a compensating reduction in total resources expended
from £482k to £395k, in particular wage costs dropped by £65k in the period.
The balance sheet shows that funds have moved up from
£127,867 to £132,549 reflecting the overall surplus of £4,682. Funds are split between restricted funds
and unrestricted funds of which some have been designated. Notes 10 and 11 highlight the breakdown of
the designated and restricted funds with the designated fund being the fixed
asset fund and restricted funds showing the completion of the MIME project
and the small balance left in the partnership fund. The top half of the balance sheet shows
that the level of tangible fixed assets continues to reduce as depreciation
is charged to them with only a small amount of office equipment and furniture
left.
In accordance with the SORP, in the directors’ report there
are details of the governance of the charity, the achievements and
performance of the charity, financial position and reserves and plans for the
future period. It was also noted that
the statement of directors’ responsibilities had been updated to reflect the
change in charity law and that this was also included within the auditors’
report.
The statement in note 1a was agreed by the board subject
to the change in wording from Scottish Executive to Scottish Government.
The Chair asked if there were any questions or comments to
Martin. There were none.
The accounts were
approved. Proposed by Honor Flynn,
seconded by Norrie Davies.
Martin was thanked for his report.
3 Matters Arising
Paul referred to page 2.
Correspondence had been circulated which he felt contradicted previous
information regarding the use of CRF to pay redundancy costs. He asked for clarification. Susan said she had not been made aware of
any changes to the previous statement.
She added that standing orders state this decision cannot
be revisited within 12 months. Paul,
on a point of order, said that as the original information issued had been
incorrect this could be revisited. He
stated that it was in the Partnership’s hands to make a decision. Maureen suggested that the decision was not
just based on the Communities Scotland advice and there were other factors
which were taken into consideration.
Graham reported that Norma Cuthbertson, Services for
Communities attends a Transitional Working Group which involves Communities
Scotland, and it is her view that redundancy costs can be included in staff
costs. He had spoken with Dominique
who said that there was no change to the view of Communities Scotland. Graham said he would be happy to write
again to the Council’s Community Planning Manager to seek clarification.
It was agreed to
seek clarification on the ruling in writing.
5 PARC
5.1 Town Centre Master Plan
John Quinn referred to the
Master Plan for the town centre and introduced Neil MacDonald and Cherry
McAllister from Broadway Malyan. Neil gave
information on the background of the company and the town planning projects
they have developed in the UK,
Europe and the Middle East. He then gave a brief presentation as to where
they are in relation to the development of the master plan.
Neil said that they need to hear from
residents as to what is and is not wanted in the area and then identify the
constraints to see what is / is not achievable. So far the feedback has been
disappointing, a further event is scheduled for 8th September when
they will be going out onto the main areas of Craigmillar and asking people
in the street.
He anticipates that a delivery strategy will
be completed by November and a final master plan by January 2008. Several important issues require to be
addressed including the major concerns regarding traffic, transport and
retail outlets.
Mike thanked Neil for his presentation.
5.2 Concerns from Sub Groups
Honor stated that there were 12 neighbourhood
groups in the area and attending these meetings would be a useful exercise to
gauging local views. Neil said if the
groups came together it would be more effective. He agreed to attend the Regeneration Forum.
Maureen referred to the dispersed tenants with
Right to Return status and felt their views should be taken into
consideration. Susan said she had the
contact information which she could make available.
Paul said he had concerns as to how a 65,000
sq ft supermarket could be justified.
He would like to see a better selection of shops. There are issues regarding traffic volume,
pollution etc. He stressed that the Board
has to have a comprehensive strategic transport/traffic plan. He referred to the new development at Kinnaird Park which can only increase
traffic. This will have a detrimental
effect on the quality of life for residents.
Graham reported that this is a shared concern
in all partnership sub groups with not only the Kinnaird
Park extension but the increase in
traffic with the Shawfair development, Queen Margaret
University and the
hospital also adding to the congestion.
Willie said that although he shared these
concerns and the need for traffic relief, the business community would not
like to see a situation where all traffic would bypass the area, account must
be taken of the retailers who depend on local and passing trade.
Stephen asked if it is normal to have this
detail at this stage. The consensus
was that in these circumstances it is felt that this input is definitely
required to enable traffic to keep moving but speeds low and the need to
retain retail access but discourage a rat run. It was pointed out that Niddrie Mains Road
is the main road into the town.
Norrie said this issue is repeated time and
time again and it is fundamental that this is sorted first before any other
decisions are made re planning.
John agreed that there is a need for a wider traffic
impact study but the brief for Broadway Malyan is the Town Centre.
It was
agreed that Graham would write to Andrew Holmes on the need for a traffic
impact study.
5.2.1 Business & Labour Charter
Neil Scott reported that it is intended to
have a launch in October and it is anticipated that the Enterprise Minister
will be invited to be involved. The
occasion will also be as practical as possible by allowing contractors to
meet sub contractors etc and link in to possible job opportunities.
Maureen asked if it would be possible to sign
something on the day. John suggested
that participants could be asked to sign up to the process. Individual contracts would require much
more detail and legal input.
5.2.2 Public Transport Link/Transport Impact
Study
This discussion was covered under 5.2
6 CEC School
Closure
In light of the council decision
earlier this week not to go ahead with the proposals no discussion took place.
7 SUB GROUP MINUTES
Graham said these were provided for information of the
work of the sub groups and chairs or members of the groups would be happy to
answer questions.
7.5 Funding Panel
Graham drew attention to the recommendations on page 2.
4.1 Services for Vulnerable Women. It
was agreed to confirm recommendation of £5,964.
4.2 WISE. it was agreed to confirm the
recommendation of £3,019 to WISE subject to the recommendation that WISE receive CEC support.
Page 3
4.3 Bingham Allocation.
It was noted that a small group has been formed to consider
applications. Letters have been sent out to interested parties.
4.4 Childcare in Craigmillar. CEC Children & Families had applied for
the costs of childcare for children from Craigmillar. The money will go to childcare
providers. The Board agreed in
principle to continue to support childcare for children in Craigmillar. In maintaining this commitment more
accurate figures were required.
Graham said that the Funding Panel had asked for a
detailed application for the next meeting in October. The Board agreed to give the
Funding Panel the authority to make an award to Children and Families for
childcare in Craigmillar on receipt of revised figures. The award will be administered by the
Partnership Support Team.
Page 4
4.4.1 Women into Work.
This group have made a request for funding to enable them to meet the
increased costs of providing a crèche for a course being held in
Craigmillar. The cost has risen 110% over
what was charged by CCS.
Paul questioned the high cost of providing a crèche. He said that CCS charged £6,000 which
covered all staff costs and still made a profit with no subsidy. The cost has risen from £6,000 to £21,000
and this must be looked at in greater detail.
Willie said although he has no objection to allocating funds for
childcare he objects to the money going to private companies outwith
Craigmillar. He asked when it was
likely that local childcare provision would be available.
The crèche will involve 13 children for a part day for 13
weeks at a cost of £21,000. Maureen
was concerned if no decision was made in order to obtain more information the
course may be delayed. Paul responded
that it is the responsibility of the Board to ask questions before giving
money. It was agreed ask for more
information and to remit the decision to the next Funding Panel.
8 Code of Conduct –
Protocol
Paul had requested a report on the protocol between the
council and Lismore Parent Action Group.
Derek Welsh provided a written report and advised that both parties
had signed up to the protocol in June 2006.
The proposed review has not happened yet; however he reported that
there were a number of concerns within the past 2-3 months which have been
brought to his attention.
Gail Ross said that in terms of the protocol LPAG had been
under scrutiny and had acted within the guidelines of protocol. She felt that Derek has listed 6 points, which
effectively judged LPAG before these have been investigated. Derek agreed to return with a review when
it was complete.
8.1 Letters from Norrie Davies & Honor
Flynn
Norrie and Honor had circulated a letter to the Chair regarding
an incident at the Funding Panel when Paul made derogatory remarks to a
member of the public. They also referred to another letter sent to the
previous Chair regarding breaches of the code of conduct. On that occasion Paul and Mick McNulty had
insulted both members of the public and fellow directors. Concern was expressed that this behaviour is
bringing the whole Partnership into disrepute. Another serious matter of concern is
statements made and letters sent out by Paul as “Community representative,
Craigmillar Partnership”, unknown to other directors.
The Chair invited Paul to comment on this. Paul declined.
The Chair said that this relates to the issue of who
should be signing up to the protocol and stated that all project management
committees including directors of the partnership and all council officials
should be signing the protocol agreement.
All directors agreed
to sign the protocol and return it to Graham.
The Chair made it
clear that statements and letters can only be written on behalf of the
Partnership by the Chair or the Partnership Manager.
9 Meeting Venues
The Chair thanked everyone for attending when the venue of
the meeting was changed at short notice. The change of venue was due to
Capacity Building Project refusing to allow three members of the public to
enter the building. As all members of
the public may attend Partnership meetings the CBP building could not be
used.
The Chair reported that the Community Council meeting was
cancelled last night as CBP wanted 3 people to leave the building and called
the police when they would not leave.
As the police could not attend for an hour it was decided to cancel
the meeting.
David Walker said everyone knows the three people involved
will not be allowed access to the building.
Stephen asked how long the ban is in place. David replied that would be up to the
management committee, possibly 1-2 years.
He will look into what the policy is in other public buildings. He added that he had sent a letter stating
that they would not be allowed into the building and they should not have
tried to attend the meeting.
Gail had copies of emails she had received from Eileen
Hewitt, the Council’s community council officer, stating that she could not
be banned from a public building. The
Chair confirmed that it is a council building and that CBP do not have the
right to ban anyone. He had been
copied into correspondence from the council and read out the relevant
statement.
David said he had not received any direct correspondence
from the Council. Paul said it was
standard practice for people who did not behave appropriately to be banned
from buildings. He couldn’t understand why CBP couldn’t ban people as a means
of regulating their behaviour.
Norrie asked where social inclusion came into play. Who decides, as there are always two sides
to a story? Norrie was at the meeting
in question and in his opinion no-one was any worse than the other. If the meeting had been held last night
this might have been addressed and resolved.
The Partnership funds the project which runs the building, and he felt
that this state of affairs should not continue. Unless this was rectified, Norrie
suggested that CBP should have their funding withdrawn. Graham reminded the Board that Services for
Communities is currently investigating complaints into CBP and this may be
factored into the general investigation.
Willie stated that the Partnership is clearly not working
in harmony. As a first step he
suggested that future meetings could be held in Cre8te. Willie expressed concern about the
disharmony and asked if others could mediate, perhaps a small group working
to attempt to resolve issues. He
reminded members that we will soon be part of a wider Neighbourhood
Partnership. He also pointed out to
David that the CBP building is a Community Centre for the use of all the community.
Graham referred to the spreadsheet showing various options
for meeting venues. He remarked that
Cre8te would not charge for the use of a meeting room and suggested using
their room for the next meeting. For
the record Hays have agreed not to charge us for the room for this meeting
today. It was agreed to contact Cre8te to confirm availability.
10 AOCB
10.1 Companies House
A leaflet was circulated from Companies House offering free
information sessions on the roles and responsibilities of directors.
10.2 Directors
Remuneration
Norrie asked that it be put on record that he does not
receive any payment or benefit of any kind in relation to his attendance at
Partnership meetings.
In response to Willie’s suggestion that mediation should
be considered to resolve issues within the board Norrie wished to point out
that when certain people write to the Department of Work & Pensions
stating that he is receiving payment as a director of this board it is beyond
mediation.
10.3 Graeme Cunningham Award
The board were asked to note that a local woman has won
the Graeme Cunningham Award
from the Chamber of Commerce. The
board were delighted to note this and agreed to send a letter of
congratulations to Pauline Hodge.
11 Date of Next Meeting
It was agreed to schedule several dates to enable
directors to plan their diaries in advance.
The dates are as follows: 7th
November; 6th February 2008, 30th April 2008 and 25th
June 2008. All meetings will
commence at 9.30am and the next will be held in Cre8te.
MINUTES
OF CRAIGMILLAR PARTNERSHIP BOARD MEETING HELD ON 27th JUNE 2007 AT
CRAIGMILLAR COMMUNITY CENTRE, NIDDRIE MAINS TERRACE, EDINBURGH.
PRESENT
PARTNERSHIP DIRECTORS
Cllr Mike Bridgman - Chair
Cllr Stephen Hawkins - City
of Edinburgh
Council
Cllr Maureen Child - City of Edinburgh
Council
Honor Flynn - Community
Representative
Norrie Davis - Community Representative
Paul Nolan - Community Representative
Mick
McNulty - Community Representative
Willie
McEwan - Craigmillar District Business
Association
ADVISORS
Susan
Mooney - CEC SfC Neighbourhood Manager
Jane
Rough - CEC Children & Families
Graham Fairbrother - CEC Children & Families
John
Quinn - PARC
IN
ATTENDANCE
Tony Clapham - Community Councillor
Peter McColl - Portobello
Community Councillor
Elizabeth Barron - Community Councillor
Neil Scott - Cre8te
Patsy King - Childcare
Services
Susan Carr - Craigmillar
Neighbourhood Alliance
Mike Bell - Empowering
Communities
David Walker - Capacity Building
Project
Graham Rowan - Craigmillar Partnership
John Palmer - Craigmillar
Partnership
Faye Gray - Craigmillar
Partnership
OBSERVERS: Staff from Craigmillar Childcare
Services and members of the public
1 APOLOGIES
Apologies
received from Dominique Petitqueux of Communities Scotland.
2 Minute of Meeting held
on 30 May 2007-06-28
This was agreed as a correct
record, proposed by Paul seconded by Willie.
3 Matters Arising
Graham referred to a proposal by Norrie
that Cllr Maureen Child be co-opted onto the board. Subsequently a letter has been received
with nominations from Cllr Bridgman and Cllr Hawkins. The board agreed to welcome Cllr Child onto
the board of the Craigmillar Partnership.
Paul asked what the response from PARC was in relation to
his question regarding the trees on Niddrie Mains Road. John said he would address this in his
report (agendum 5).
3.1 Craigmillar Childcare Services
Paul declared an interest in this item but wished to point
out that he has been made aware that redundancy payments have been paid from
CRF funds in North and West Edinburgh.
Graham provided a brief background. At a full meeting of the Council in March
it was decided to award one quarter funding to Childcare Services. There have been subsequent meetings of the
council but the position remains the same.
The Funding Panel on 12th June agreed in principal to award
a further quarter funding of £52,200 to meet basic redundancy costs and that
the Partnership Manager seek legal advice on whether this could be managed by
the Partnership Team. The advice from
the lawyer was that this
would create a strong TUPE argument against the Partnership which could
assume the employment liabilities as well.
Mike asked Susan Mooney to give an update to the current
position.
Susan reported that The City of Edinburgh Council
Departments of Services for Communities and Finance, have taken the view that
it would not be appropriate for the Craigmillar Partnership to make an award
to Craigmillar Childcare Services to cover redundancy costs for the following
reasons;
·
It would be outwith the terms and conditions of the Community
Regeneration Fund. Communities Scotland has indicated that the
use of CRF money for this purpose would be wholly inappropriate.
·
The award through an alternative organisation does not meet acceptable
standards for the disbursement and utilisation of public resources and;
·
Any payments could be legally frozen by creditors of Craigmillar
Childcare Services.
When asked who had made that
decision Susan reported that the council have been in contact with
Communities Scotland and the decision not to give any more funding to Childcare
Services came from the highest level.
Communities Scotland
further said that if anyone paid the redundancies on behalf of Childcare
Services, the council, as accountable body, would not get the money back from
Communities Scotland.
Willie asked what the position was for interim and long
term childcare in Craigmillar.
Jane Rough reported that as Childcare Services had been
unwilling to co-operate with the council it was difficult to identify current
service users. Information had been
sent to families via local schools and nurseries, an advert in the
Craigmillar Chronicle and a mailshot to all households. CCS had been asked to
send the same information to all the families using its services but had
refused to do so.
Working for Families have had, or arranged, meetings with
all 22 families who have contacted them. Jane listed the assistance which was
being offered to families: financial assistance with travel costs and
increased costs of childcare provision and free transport to and from
childcare for families wishing to use it.
Alternative childcare providers near Craigmillar have been contacted
twice to identify the current number of vacancies and to request spaces be
held for Craigmillar children. She
stressed that no parent will need to give up their job as a result of changes
proposed for childcare provision in Craigmillar.
At this point Graham
referred to a letter from CCS regarding training costs and suggested an award
for this purpose would be within the terms & conditions. Jane said that Children & Families have
taken a commitment to complete the training of 6 individuals by placing them
with other childcare providers.
The Chair expressed his sympathy towards CCS staff members
who wished to contribute to the discussion in relation to redundancy payments
but advised them that this was not an open meeting and that the Board have to
take advice from council departments.
Susan said that if the company went into administration
then employees can make a claim to the DTI.
Communities Scotland
had advised that redundancy costs would be met through this route.
Patsy King said that other projects have
received redundancy payments, Susan responded that because CCS have creditors
they could make a claim on any money which was awarded to CCS. | 