Community Planning

Document Sample
Community Planning Powered By Docstoc
					                         Policy and Implementation Group
                      and Efficient Government Steering Group

                Minutes of the twenty-fifth PIG meeting and first joint PIG/EGSG meeting
                 held at 2.15pm on 31st January 2006 in the St. Magnus Centre, Kirkwall

Present:         Councillor Stephen Hagan           Convener, Orkney Islands Council
                 Mrs Jenny Dewar                    Chair, NHS Orkney
                 Mr Edgar Balfour                   Vice-Chairman, Orkney Enterprise Ltd
                 Mr Alistair Buchan                 Chief Executive, Orkney Islands Council
                 Mr Steve Conway                    Chief Executive, NHS Orkney
                 Mr Ken Grant                       Chief Executive, Orkney Enterprise
                 Councillor Keith Johnson           Chairman, Communities Advisory Group
                 Mr Jeremy Baster                   Chairman, Environment Partnership
                 Councillor James Stockan           Chairman, Local Economic Forum
                 Chief Inspector Mike Cowdry        Kirkwall Area Commander, Northern Constabulary
                 Ms Anna Whelan                     Head of Policy, OIC (Secretary)
Present for item 1 (Efficient Government):
                 Mr Iain Crozier                    Director of Finance, NHS Orkney
                 Mr Albert Tait                     Director of Finance, Orkney Islands Council
                 Ms Carla Tannous                   Finance Section, NHS Orkney
                 Ms Eileen Linklater                Policy Officer, OIC (Secretary, EGSG)
Apologies:       Mr Bryan Kynoch                    Chairman, Orkney Enterprise

1.         Efficient Government

1.1        Minutes of the Efficient Government Steering Group/Coordinating Committee meeting held
           17th January 2006

           The minutes were agreed, and no matters arose that were not already on the agenda.

1.2        Draft report to OIC Policy and Resources Committee and draft Stage 2 bid

1.2.1      The Head of Policy, OIC, tabled and introduced the draft report which was to be submitted to
           the Council’s Policy and Resources Committee updating the Committee on where the project
           was at the current time. This was originally intended to be the draft stage 2 bid, but this was
           not possible as several reviews had been delivered late. Instead attached at appendix to the
           report was a template of how the final bid would look using the first project completed on
           non-emergency patient transport as an example. This included a draft economic appraisal
           compiled by Brian Burns, the consultant commissioned to help at this stage of the process.
           The covering report asked the committee to decide whether it should delegate authority to the
           Chief Executive to finish the bid, or arrange a special meeting in March to review the final
           draft. Comments made on the proposals in the draft report were noted as follows:-

1.2.2      IT

      AKJ pointed out the lack of infrastructure locally to enable remote and mobile working. AB
      agreed that acknowledgement of these needs should be made as it could strengthen the case
      for improved services if commitment to using the technology was made.

3.3   Property management and maintenance
      As this was the last review to be completed members of the group had not had the opportunity
      to study the findings. AB pointed out that there was certainly scope for rationalisation, and
      IC noted that much duplication of maintenance trips to the isles could be eradicated.

3.4   Catering
      Following discussions with Brian Burns it was suggested that the work done on catering
      procurement submitted as supporting evidence for the wider procurement bid. The meeting
      agreed this was sensible and that a separate wider review of catering provision should take
      place as a second strand to this project.

3.5   HR and Staff Training
      SC noted that NHSO was happy with the review as far as it went.

3.6   Vehicle management and maintenance
      It was noted that further work was being conducted in this area by NHSO and OIC, following
      which a decision would be taken on whether the project would be eligible for inclusion in the

3.7   Patient/Service User Transport
      This section was the most fully worked up and had been subjected to full economic appraisal.
      AB noted that he was happy with the model, which was included as an appendix to the report.

3.8   Procurement
      Issues arose in relation to the effects of framework contracts on local business, but AB
      pointed out that the imminent findings of the McClelland report would perhaps force a worse
      situation locally so it was felt that it would be wise to stay ahead of the game. The Chair
      noted the ever-present need to fight to protect small communities.

3.9   It was agreed that Efficient Government should be a standing item on the PIG agenda from
      now on as the meeting of the Efficient Government Steering Group of 1st December 2005 had
      decided that the PIG would be the appropriate body to monitor the project in future.

      The meeting then moved onto PIG business and those present only for Efficient Government
      business were invited to leave.

2.    Minutes of 24th meeting held 5th September 2005 (attached)

      The minutes were agreed.

3.    Matters arising

3.1   Regeneration Outcome Agreement
      It was reported that the OIC Policy Unit had been in liaison with Communities Scotland and
      their consultant, Ian Clark of Tribal HCH, to finalise the outcomes, targets and baselines in
      the ROA, and these were now virtually complete. One major task remaining was to produce a
      monitoring and reporting framework, and Tribal HCH had been asked to quote for this piece
      of work in light of their existing expertise and familiarity with Orkney’s ROA. Provision of
      £2,000 had been made for this purpose in the proposal for a Community Planning Support
      Grant (see item 4).

4.    Community Planning Support Grant

4.1   It was reported that Orkney CPP had been invited by Communities Scotland to apply for a
      Community Planning Support Grant of £10k per year for three years commencing 2005-06.
      A bid had been submitted which proposed using the funds to pay for the following:-

       Cost Item                                                                          £
       1. Development of Regeneration Outcome Agreement for Orkney                      5,000
       2. Development of monitoring frameworks for the CPP to measure progress
       in respect of regeneration outcomes                                              2,000
       3. Consulting on and drafting a new edition of Orkney’s community plan           3,000
       4. Designing/printing the new edition of Orkney’s community plan                 4,000
       5. Development of data sharing protocol and community profiling database         6,000
       6. Third year of rolling programme of community engagement                     10,000
       TOTAL                                                                          30,000

      Item 1 was a retrospective proposal (permitted under the grant criteria) which would
      reimburse the OIC Policy Unit for some of the very considerable time spent preparing the

4.2   It was confirmed that the proposal had been accepted and an offer letter had been received
      Communities Scotland; this had been signed and returned by way of confirmation.

4.3   PIG members were asked to agree to the proposed implementation of item 2, noted at 3.
      above, It was reported that Tribal HCH had quoted £2,400 + VAT for the work, but that
      some other OCPP resources designated for capacity building could be used to make up the
      difference. There was no capacity within the Policy Unit to do the work at present. It was
      agreed to accept Tribal HCH’s quotation.

5.    Community Engagement

5.1   The first 6-month progress report by VAO on the community engagement programme was
      discussed, together with VAO’s proposals for the second year of the programme, which had
      been designed to be deliverable within the budgeted £10,000.

5.2   Concern was expressed at the apparent lack of co-ordination of different consultation
      exercises, the potential for consultation fatigue, and the ability of statutory agencies to meet
      expectations raised in consultation. It was noted that while agencies still had to do their own
      statutory consultations, they were not as comprehensive or consistent as the community
      engagement programme, which met the national standards for community engagement,
      generated information which was already proving valuable in the preparation of funding bids,
      and would be an asset in the Council’s forthcoming audit of Best Value and community

5.3   It was suggested that the schedule could incorporate Harray, Birsay, Sandwick and Dounby
      into a single meeting, and agreed to raise this withVAO.                    Action: AFW

5.3   It was agreed to accept VAO’s proposals and quotation for the second year of the programme.
      It was further agreed to look at the issue of co-ordination of consultation exercises, and
      address the concerns expressed in the meeting, in advance of any further extension of VAO's
      contract, and to report on this matter to the PIG at a later date.             Action: AFW

6.    Rural Service Priority Areas — Proposals to SEERAD

6.1   JB reported that resurfacing of the isles airstrips was in the OIC capital programme but a long
      way off, and the surface was deteriorating. The work needed to be done sooner if the service
      was not to be put at risk, since the Civil Aviation Authority was empowered to close airfields
      on safety grounds. Fortuitously, the four which most needed resurfacing included the three
      which fell within the Rural Service Priority Area, plus Papa Westray, and the cost would
      equate approximately to the sum available once the Adult Education programme (Providing
      learning opportunities in island communities) had been funded. Tenders would be sought if
      and when SEERAD approved the initial proposal.

6.2   It was agreed to submit a bid to SEERAD for £100k to cover the Adult Education programme
      and the four isles airstrips in North Ronaldsay, Sanday, Stronsay and Papa Westray.
                                                                                     Action: AFW

7.    NHS Orkney Community Health Partnership Scheme of Establishment (attached)

7.1   The Chief Executive of NHSO introduced the Scheme of Establishment which had been
      designed to meet the criteria of the Scottish Executive for CHPs while complementing the
      work of the Joint Management Team. In future, the NHSO Board would set direction and
      policy as directed by the Executive, while the CHP would be responsible for delivery of

7.2   It was noted that the OIC Corporate Management Team had already considered and accepted
      the Scheme of Establishment as the best option available.

7.3   It was agreed to endorse NHS Orkney’s CHP Scheme of Establishment on behalf of the
      Orkney Community Planning Partnership.

8.    Information Sharing

8.1   It was noted that DASAT were keen to formalise information sharing procedure and establish
      protocols for sharing information. Current issues related to data protection, marking papers
      for Freedom of Information exemption, and surveillance. The key question was how we
      could trade information legally and properly.

8.2   It was reported that the Scottish Executive was shortly to announce a fund to promote
      information sharing, which could be worth up to £150k per year, over three years, to each
      local authority area. In the meantime, the Isles Development Group had been considering
      information sharing for community planning purposes, and funding of £6k had been secured
      as part of the Community Planning Support Grant (item 4 above) for the development of a
      data sharing protocol and community profiling database.

8.3   It was agreed that a local information sharing steering group was needed to address the
      matter, and agreed that this should be co-ordinated by Chief Inspector Mike Cowdry on
      behalf of the OCPP.                                                        Action: MC

9.    Future options for Orkney Young Scot (Dialogue Youth)

9.1   It was noted that the purpose of the report was to request Council funding for Orkney Young
      Scot (Dialogue Youth), to supplement the £30k per year already committed by the OCPP
      from the Community Regeneration Fund. The report was scheduled for submission to the
      Policy and Resources Committee on 24th February 2006.

10.   Any other business

10.1   The Chief Executive of Orkney Enterprise Ltd requested an updated set of accounts for the
       OCPP and it was agreed to bring these to the next meeting.                 Action: AFW

Anna Whelan
1st March 2006


Shared By: