Ft Wm, Inv & Tor CC

EMD/WedHeads: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

EMD/WedHeads (view source)

Revision as of 13:38, 18 April 2022

34,504 bytes removed ,  2 years ago
m
no edit summary
VisualWikitext
(Fetch WHds 1-9)
mNo edit summary
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1:
I'm having serious problems with VERY unhelpful 'abuse' filters.
 
=='[https://DraytonMark.SubStack.com/welcome Wednesday Headway]' columns (NB: for latest contents see <https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-i>)==
=Stuff=
 
The '[https://draytonmark.substack.com/archive Wed-Heads]' are weekly online articles written by [https://draytonmark.wordpress.com/author/cllrmarkdrayton/ Mark Drayton] and published on SubStack under the sub-headline '(Making) Wednesday Headway' (or occasionally some variation thereof).
==WedHeads==
<nowiki><nohtml><nomarkup>
====Wed-Head i====
I reckon it's about time we made some ‘Wednesday Headway’. -=-
Starting today, I will write a short post here on most Wednesdays - at
least until the community council AGM in early summer. The unifying
theme will be progressive improvement, so I'll call it my 'Wednesday
Headway' post.
-=-
If you've read my page at https://draytonmark.wordpress.com/ you'll
know that I think your CC is pretty lousy at listening. I have not
exactly made a secret of this opinion: quite the opposite. So it's
perfectly fair that when FITCC met last night I was challenged to put
up or shut up.
-=-
I was tasked with running a pilot project in Plantation gathering
views about upkeep. In time that will include littering and dumping,
but we agreed to start with a focus on dog fouling.
-=-
Fouling is a health hazard that inhibits children's play, and I think
that annoys me about it even more than having to wipe the damn stuff
off the soles of my shoes. So I'm keen to do something about it.
However, as a community councillor my opinion doesn't much matter:
it's yours that counts.
-=-
Here are three ways for you to say what we could/should do about dog fouling:-
* You can reply publicly here.
* You can contact me privately (see my profile for details).
* You can stay anonymous by using my WP Contact Form
https://draytonmark.wordpress.com/contact/ and giving your email
address as no-reply@anon.me.uk (or set up an anonymous mailbox first,
and use that).
-=-
Thanks for your thinking, -M
 
==The '''Author'''==
====Wed-Head ii====
[https://substack.com/profile/42633293-comm-cllr-e-m-drayton Edward Marcus ('Mark') Drayton] is a [[Main Page|community council]]lor living in [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22PH33+6HY%22&ia=all&iaxm=maps Morven Place], Plantation, Fort William, Inverness-shire.
Making some more Wednesday Headway. -=-
Today's perfectly horrid 'woke' cancel-culture is in grave danger of
giving diversity a thoroughly bad name. But, all other things being
equal, diversity is a real source of strength for smaller communities.
To judge by our surnames alone, we in Plantation have a very healthy
mix.
-=-
Sunday (ie the 21st March) happened to be the UN International Day
for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Which is great,
obviously: who could be against eliminating racial discrimination? But
I think it also misses an important point: doesn't 'discriminating'
simply mean "telling the difference between"? Normally that's good! If
you can't tell the difference between a samosa and a spring roll then
you need to take a COVID test, pronto - because losing your sense of
taste or smell is one of the top three symptoms to watch out for.
-=-
OK, I'm being absurdly literal. But still, I reckon the
calendar-fillers at the United Nations underestimate the extent to
which good-natured ordinary folk DO appreciate difference - and do
understand the resilience it can add to communities that recognise its
potential.
-=-
For example, Eastern Europeans of my age (48) and older will remember
the fall of the Berlin Wall and will have memories of what preceded
it. Younger adults will have parents and grandparents who told plenty
of grim tales about what life was like in disempowered communities
under a stifling bureaucracy.
-=-
Given the trajectory we're on - both as a locality and a civilisation
- those stories resonate with me today. They contain important
warnings and teach vital lessons, one of which is that localism is a
critical defence against bureaucratic tyranny.
-=-
So, (to borrow from JFK): don't ask what your community can do for you
- ask what you can do for your community. -M
 
====Wed-HeadThe iii==Columns==
"''By way of introduction, some time around the middle of March 2021 I made a commitment to write a weekly 'mini-column' until (at least) the FITCC** AGM in June, and to post them on ''<https://NextDoor.co.uk/>'', a 'hyper-local' social networking site. They didn't stay 'mini-' for very long - about a fortnight in fact. At the end of July I decided to move everything onto ''<https://SubStack.com/>''. Since I'd already created a ''<https://WordPress.com/>'' site - ''<https://DraytonMark.WordPress.com/>'' - I kept the same prefix, hence ''<https://DraytonMark.SubStack.com/>''.'' -M"[https://draytonmark.substack.com/p/wed-head-i]
Making more Wednesday Headway. -=-
April's FITCC meeting (Tuesday 20th, ie three weeks away) will discuss
'Local Place Plans', described as a "new type of community-led plan in
Scotland." This a Scottish Government initiative, and they have begun
a public consultation on implementing them. The consultation ends on
25th June, by which time FITCC will certainly have agreed a submission
of some kind. I hope it will have teeth!
-=-
Local Place Plans were introduced by the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019
and will be a tool for local communities to think about "how to make
their 'place' better, agree priorities and take action to make change
happen". The consultation is seeking views around the "preparation,
content, submission and registration" of Local Place Plans. This will
be used to develop secondary legislation and guidance around what the
plans look like and how they will work.
-=-
Below are a few quotes I've extracted from ScotGov's consultation
paper ( https://www.gov.scot/publications/proposals-regulations-local-place-plans-consultation/ - see also the more readable https://www.scdc.org.uk/what/local-place-plans ). I think
the last quote is deeply troubling, and I for one intend to do something
about it! As always I'm particularly keen to hear from Plantation
residents, but basically anyone can contact me about this. -M
-=-
* "Over three-quarters of adults felt a very or fairly strong sense
of belonging to their neighbourhood"
-=-
* "People are keen to shape the places that they live, work and play"
-=-
* "It is vital that local people have the opportunity to engage
meaningfully and have a positive influence in the future planning of
development in their areas"
-=-
* "Children and young people want to be involved in decisions about
the places they live [..] The majority of young people feel they
should be involved in planning in their local area and that their
local councils should look at ways to support children and young
people to do this"
-=-
* "Lack of confidence and dominant characters can discriminate
against some people during community engagement"
-=-
* "In 2019, only 18% of adults felt they could influence decisions in
their local area, decreas[ing] significantly from 24% of adults in
2015"
 
==Contents (correct as of mid-December 2021)==
====Wed-Head iv====
March 2021 (17th, 24th, 31st)
Making Wednesday Headway. -=-
i. (this)
Following my post about Local Place Plans last week, Mark Linfield
ii. (original i & ii)
mentioned the FW2040 ( https://www.highland.gov.uk/FW2040 )
iii. Local Place Plans (LPPs) I
'Masterplan'. This is part of the 'WestPlan' Local Development Plan
for West Highland and Islands, so it is at a different, higher 'level'
from Local Place Plans - which are at the same level as 'Community
Action Plans' (
https://dtascommunityownership.org.uk/community/community-place-plans/what-are-place-plans/community-action-plans
) - indeed, Local Place Plans (
https://www.scdc.org.uk/what/local-place-plans ) and Community Action
Plans "can essentially be the same thing" (see list below).
-=-
Adding to the count of local plans, Fort William has both a 2015
Town Centre Action Plan ( look for the link near the bottom of
https://www.highland.gov.uk/FW2040 ) and a more recent Locality Action
Plan drawn up under the auspices of Lochaber's umbrella Community
Partnership formed in 2019. Locality Action Plans are implemented by
Locality Action Groups, so Fort William has one of those as well (on
which Mr Linfield himself serves, I believe).
-=-
Returning to FW2040, Mr Linfield will readily confirm how little
prompting it takes to get me to remind my fellow community councillors
of our statutory remit to "ascertain, co-ordinate and express" the
views of the community we serve. FW2040 is a very good example of
taking the second of these seriously. It's essentially a bottom-up
co-ordinating project led by two capable individuals, HRC's Scott
Delgano and HIE's Alastair Nicolson, that attempts to impose coherence
on an array of locally-devised proposals in various stages of planning
maturity.
-=-
And therein lies FW2040's Achilles heel: as Lochaber Councillor Denis
Rixson has put it**, there is "an anomaly that runs through all the
FW2040 documentation. We may refer to a Masterplan, we are
recommending it become a 'material consideration' but it is not, and
never will be, a blueprint. Such is the 'siloed' approach of
governmental development in Britain that I look at it as more of an
assemblage of practical proposals - all in different stages of
development - and visionary aspirations. Some of the latter may become
the former but usually that will depend on some non-governmental body
carrying them to fruition."
-=-
[[ **in correspondence with the author ]]
-=-
So much for FW2040. But how should a Local Place Plan for Fort William
relate to it? If you followed the links from my post of last
Wednesday, you'll immediately have come across this ten-point list of
key principles of LPPs drawn up by SCDC ( https://www.scdc.org.uk ):-
-=-
1. Local Place Plans should be community-led.
2. Local Place Plans should be prepared through inclusive and robust
community engagement.
3. Local Place Plans should express a clear vision with key actions.
4. Local Place Plans should be co-produced and co-delivered.
5. LPPs should reflect community aspirations, and should not be
limited to spatial planning.
6. The spatial elements of Local Place Plans should inform Local
Development Plans.
7. Local Place Plans should be tools for community empowerment and
addressing inequality.
8. Local Place Plans should be tools to help community planning and
land-use planning achieve better outcomes.
9. Local Place Plans boundaries should reflect local community boundaries.
10. Local Place Plans and Community Action Plans can essentially be
the same thing.
-=-
As I read it, the sixth principle means that Fort William's Place Plan
should "inform" WestPlan (the Local Development Plan that covers FW,
see above), so presumably it should 'inform' FW2040. Fine: back in
Inverness, Mr Delgano can surely be trusted to do a good job of
revising FW2040 if we here can all do a good job of drawing up a Local
Place Plan. But, taken together, these ten points worry me for a
different reason: they seem to attempt the more-or-less impossible
task of integrating development and application in a single
initiative.
-=-
Put simply, if you want competent land-development planning you need a
geographically coarse-grained decision-making architecture (eg points
5, 6 & 8 above), whereas if you want competent USE you need a
fine-grained architecture: without a thoroughgoing commitment to
localism you haven't got a snowball's chance in Liberty Smelter of
achieving points 1, 2, 4 & 7.
-=-
So my immediate reaction was that (not for the first time) a
well-intentioned planning strategy has been undermined from the get-go
by an ill-thought-out concept. I hope I'm wrong: as Dwight Eisenhower
wisely remarked, "plans are worthless - but planning is everything."
 
April 2021 (7th, 14th, 21st, 28th)
====Wed-Head v====
iv. LPPs II
Making Wednesday Headway again. -=-
v. FWCAG's Ft Wm Locality Survey
A fortnight ago my Wed-Head post quoted a 2019 ScotGov survey result
vi. Snook's Public Accountability Report
that "only 18% of adults felt they could influence decisions in their
vii. LPPs III
local area, decreas[ing] significantly from 24% of adults in 2015."
And in last week's Wed-Head post I mentioned in passing that FITCC
chairman and communitarian Mark Linfield serves on our Locality Action
Group, known as the 'Fort William Community Action Group' (FWCAG), as
part of Lochaber's statutory Community Partnership. As it happens,
FWCAG conducted a survey of their own in 2019 as many readers will
recall**.
-=-
[[ **I still have an electronic copy of that survey, so if you need
your memory jogged, email me ]]
-=-
I am very grateful to Mr Linfield for supplying me with the following
'findings' and 'quotations' flowing from the last question of that
FWCAG survey, about local influence, which together go a long way
towards explaining why the number of adults who felt they could
influence local decisions dropped by a quarter in only four years -
and from an already unimpressive level in 2015. That should worry us
all - but don't panic: I'm on the case, kids.
-=-
Q20. Decision making/influence - FINDINGS:-
* Things been decided out with the area (too many things been decided
in Inverness)
* No community ‘centre’ for people to get together and voice opinions
* Community Council needs to be more visual and use social media
* Better communication methods required – meetings aren’t always ideal
* People are not aware of who is representing them (the community) on
important matters
* Feel its simply a ‘tick box’ exercise – people don’t really listen,
most often a ‘done deal’.
* Councillors and Council staff need to listen more to what
communities want (Council needs to be better engaged with CC and other
community groups)
* Some young people and older adults feel that no-one listens to
them (their opinions don’t count)
* Need to ensure there is feedback to people after
consultations/engagement – criticism that people don’t know what’s
been decided
-=-
Q20. Decision making/influence - QUOTATIONS:-
* "We're not asked about things. We've been given information about
the new houses -but it is not clear what is planned and what is
agreed. Knowing who is representing the community is important - but I
don't know who that is."
* "When you get older, people don't think your views are important."
* "I don't know how to contribute to decisions other than
contributing to questionnaires such as this."
* "I feel that there is very little opportunity for people to have
their voice heard in Lochaber/Fort William. I'm not aware if there is
a community council for Fort William any more? I'm not aware that I
have ever been involved in any aspect of input in to how the council
makes decisions on spend for public facilities and services."
* "Community Council should use social media to promote their activities."
* "This survey is the only time I have felt able to make contribution"
* "I’m not fully aware of all the ways in which I could be involved
and share my views."
* "Local decision making appears to be vastly reduced."
* "Community councils need to be more visual, use social media
platforms to keep in touch with communities. Any meetings need to be
at times when the majority can attend, be well advertised and
genuine."
* "There are no local organisations. There is no community centre
there is no hub of the community where people can get together and
voice opinions"
* "Never been asked. It’s not ideal going to community meetings so
they think because people don’t go to them no one cares. Reality is
people are to scared to public ally voice opinion because they will be
put down and judged for having one."
 
May 2021 (5th, 12th, 19th, 26th)
====Wed-Head vi====
viii. Dog Fouling
Making Wednesday Headway. -=-
ix. Election of MSPs
In this week's Wed-Head post I am rounding-out the last three with
x. Fouling II
some more research findings, this time at national (ie Scottish)
xi. Parking in the Planny
level. Last February, Kilmallie CC's Russell Leaper and I attended a
research seminar towards Scot Gov's National Action Plan Commitment 4:
'Citizens' access to accountability processes in Scotland's public
services.' In September I received a copy of the resulting report
(whose 57 pages are available online at
https://www.gov.scot/publications/scotlands-second-national-open-government-action-plan-2018-20-commitment-4-improving-access-accountability-public-services-public-stakeholder-engagement/
).
-=-
To save folk reading even the 'executive summary' I have extracted the
key points below. Four areas for 'attention' are identified, none of
which will entirely surprise: "A lack of transparency",
"Disempowerment of users and staff", "A lack of accessibility" and,
perhaps most concerningly, "Cultures of opposition" (perhaps echoing
Tony Blair's neatly equivocal 1999 allusion to "forces of
conservatism," plus ca change..).
-=-
FITCC met last night and Local Place Plans were discussed as a main
agenda item. I have not had time today to write a full treatment of
that discussion, but next week I expect to continue this consecutive
sequence of posts on the subject of local influence and accountability
by elaborating on last night's agreed provisional goal of FITCC being
ready and able to issue a call for views on LPPs in advance of the
next CC meeting on 18th May. That call for views would be aimed
primarily at organisations but individual responses would be welcomed
and accommodated. It is also safe to say that, for simplicity's sake,
we will be unable to accept submissions except in electronic form.
-=-
-=-=-=- REPORT -=-=-=-
-=-
We Are Snook Limited - Executive Summary - Published 11 Sep 2020
Improving access to accountability of public services - engagement
-=-
(A) Barriers to accessing accountability in Scotland.
16 key themes emerged from the research [and] were grouped within the
following four categories, which represent areas that require attention:
-=-
1. A lack of transparency
A general lack of transparency of information, behind the scenes
processing, process expectations, and decision-making created key
barriers to access of accountability. The public were unable to
understand why public decisions had been made, which led to a lack of
trust in public services and bodies. Often, people did not receive
replies when making accountability requests, and were unable to
understand how their enquiries were being processed. When
accountability processes ended, they were unaware if and how their
input had contributed towards intended change.
-=-
2. Disempowerment of users and staff
Disempowerment of the public and service delivery staff was caused by
a lack of support from the public sector to participate in
accountability processes. Existing accountability processes reduced
the ability for staff and users to engage at a human-level and
participate in active listening. Past negative experiences of
accountability and public consultation had left citizens feeling
unsupported to participate.
-=-
3. A lack of accessibility
Poor access to advocacy and support created practical barriers to
participation in accountability. Communication methods between users
and services often did not meet the needs of the public and left them
feeling excluded from accountability processes and uncared for by
public bodies.
-=-
4. Cultures of opposition
The public reported a general attitude of opposition across the public
sector. They believed that an 'us vs them' mentality existed, which
resulted in feedback from the public being disregarded and viewed as
inconvenient instead of valuable. The public were often not involved
in solution-finding and did not trust public bodies to use their input
to make positive change.
-=-
Key barriers and user needs within the categorised themes [are]
further explored in [the] report.
-=-
(B) Opportunities for improvements and examples of best practice
Three recommendations have been proposed.
-=-
1a. Investigating the barriers and opportunities to support access to
accountability within service delivery, with a focus on practical 'on
the ground' staff needs.
-=-
Many national policies, guidance, and standards that support public
access to accountability already exist, and access to accountability
processes remains dependent on the practices of 'on the ground'
service delivery staff. This review would investigate the barriers
that staff face in supporting citizens to access accountability and
delivering accountability processes that meet public needs.
-=-
1b. A review of current solutions and examples of good practice that
support access to accountability in Scotland.
-=-
Examples of good practice and access exist across Scotland, with a
lack of consistency. By taking an asset-based approach to solution
development, existing pockets of success in Scotland could be
translated into case studies to support national learning and
development in relation to accountability. This piece of work would
review the qualities of these successful examples and apply these
learnings to the barriers that operational service delivery staff
face, as identified in recommendation 1a, to identify asset-based
opportunities.
-=-
2. The formation of a People's Panel and Community of Practice to
develop pilot "tests of change".
-=-
The opportunities in response to the themes as outlined in this
report, and the findings from recommendations 1a and 1b, could be
developed into pilot solutions and tested. It is recommended that this
process of testing and development should be undertaken by a People's
Panel, who would represent the residents of Scotland, and a Community
of Practice, who would represent public sector stakeholders and
decision-makers. The formation of these working groups could
contribute to a longer term commitment to trust building and
continuous learning and development in relation to accountability.
-=-
-=-=-=- CODA -=-=-=-
-=-
***** Publication - Independent report (final) *****
Improving access to accountability of public services - engagement
Published: 11 Sep 2020
-=-
Final report and recommendations from commitment 4 of the Open
Government National Action Plan: improving peoples’ access to
accountability of public services. This work identified common
journeys and barriers to accessing accountability in Scotland.
-=-
Snook were commissioned by the Scottish Government in September
2019 to explore Commitment 4 of the Open Government National Action
Plan: 'improving citizens' access to accountability of public services.'
Through public engagement activities and events with public sector
stakeholders, this piece of work identified the common journeys
through, and barriers to, accessing accountability in Scotland.
-=-
Opportunities for improvements, including existing resources and
examples of best practice have also been summarised. In response,
three recommendations have been proposed, each one producing
outcomes and findings that inform the next. As such, it is suggested
that they be undertaken in concurrence.
-=-
From: Minister for Business, Fair Work and Skills
Directorate: Energy and Climate Change Directorate
Part of: Economy, Equality and rights, Public sector
Contents: Improving access to accountability of public services -
engagement (final report)
Format: 57 page PDF, 452.9 kB
ISBN: 9781800040632
Accessibility: This document may not be fully accessible.
Contact Email: ConsumerandCompetition@gov.scot
 
June 2021 (2nd, 9th, 16th, 23rd, 30th)
====Wed-Head vii====
xii. Fouling III
Making Wednesday Headway. -=-
xiii. 2011's Christie Report
I'm staying with planning for this week's Wed-Head, not least to keep
xiv. HRC's Planny Survey
myself out of trouble by saying anything about the election: community
xv. ScotGov/COSLA's Place Principle
councils are by convention apolitical and I'm very, very sure that's
xvi. Governance Review
for the best. So I'm returning to the current ScotGov consultation on
Local Place Plans (LPPs, see
https://www.gov.scot/publications/proposals-regulations-local-place-plans-consultation/
- and do skip past the first three paragraphs in case they cure you of
all desire to read the fourth and fifth, which are much better).
-=-
At last Tuesday's community council meeting I undertook to write
a briefing note about LPPs. I feel strongly that this is an appropriate
subject for FITCC both to seek views on and to draw up a submission
to the consultation closing on 25th June, ten days after our AGM. So
this week's Wed-Head is a condensed version of my briefing note:-
-=-
A number of tensions run through the official ScotGov consultation
If you can only bring yourself to read ONE paragraph, let it
be no.25, about policy (about which the example in no.26 is
illustrative too). Paragraphs 4 and 5 are very significant; 7-9 and
12-13 are also important. Taken together these evidence a strong
determination by ScotGov to empower communities by "flipping the
system" to put communities in the driving seat of both planning policy
and public sector reform. Let's hope it works!
-=-
This determination on the part of ScotGov gives rise directly to what
is by far the most pervasive tension in the consultation document: the
empowerment/requirement tension. Every requirement is obviously a
barrier to participation and hence to empowerment. On the other hand,
such requirements are the only real way of distinguishing between LPPs
that are fit for purpose (authoritative, usable, consequential) and
those that are not. Requirements might be given softer edges with
devices of nuance eg Codes of Good/Best Practice and the like, but
ultimately there is no escaping that the planning authority will be
obliged correctly to judge some LPPs to be valid and others invalid
according to the compliance criteria laid down in the forthcoming
secondary legislation (the planning regulations, intended to be in
place by the end of 2021).
-=-
Another tension, the "light touch" vs "robust framework" tension, is
brought out explicitly in the aforementioned paragraph 25 of the
consultation Similarly, a granularity tension pervades the
SCDC report's ten-point list of key findings ( see
https://www.scdc.org.uk/what/local-place-plans ) in that, as I wrote
last month, "if you want competent land-development planning you need
a geographically coarse-grained decision-making architecture [..],
whereas if you want competent USE you need a fine-grained architecture
[..]."
-=-
I have identified perhaps another half-dozen issues (tensions,
questions, problems) about which FITCC might seek views, but I think
the three tensions I have tried to bring forth here will give it plenty to
run with. It's worth remembering that all the issues WILL be resolved
one way or the other (whether satisfactorily or unsatisfactorily) when
the regulations are drawn up. So the question for your community
council is: can it rise to the challenge of exerting a positive influence
on that process by answering the consultation questions thoughtfully
and imaginatively?
-=-
Of the eighteen consultation questions the last nine are not very
interesting and I have only breezed past them in this summary.
Implicit in the earlier questions are two phases, pre- and post-draft:
* 1. Pre-draft: 'preparing' the draft LPP (Qs 1-5 & 8)
* 2. Post-draft: 'finalising' the LPP for submission (to the planning
authority, Qs 6-7 & 9)
-=-
This sequence leads naturally to the third phase:
* 3. Post-submission: 'validating' the LPP (by the planning authority)
-=-
Most of the questions that, as I have indicated above, relate
principally to the first two phases are about complying with
statutory/regulatory requirements; non-compliance will invalidate the
LPP, thereby preventing (or at least delaying) its registration by the
planning authorities. This is perhaps best understood in terms of
rights and duties:-
-=-
* A 'community body' (either a CC or a local geographical** group)
has the right to prepare an LPP.
* Having satisfactorily prepared an LPP, such a community body has
the right to submit the LPP to the relevant (ie encompassing) planning
authority.
* The relevant planning authority has the duty to validate an LPP,
the duty to 'register' a valid LPP, and the duty thereafter
appropriately to "take into account" that LPP, particularly when
revising the Local Development Plan (LDP, aka the 'Local Plan').
* Notwithstanding that community groups enjoy an inalienable right to
initiate preparation of an LPP anyway, the relevant planning authority
has an further duty to invite communities to prepare LPPs whenever the
encompassing LDP is scheduled to undergo a revision.
-=-
[[ **ie a group (i) defined by geographical area and (ii)
representative of that area - see
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2015/6/section/19 ]]
-=-
For completeness, the fourth and final phase is therefore:
* 4. Post-validation: 'registering' (and de-registering) the LPP (at
the planning authority, Qs 10-14)
-=-
Compliance criteria govern both process and product (ie both to what
actions must be taken in preparing the plan, and to what features eg
maps the resulting plan must include).
 
July 2021 (7th, 14th, 21st, 28th)
====Wed-Head viii====
xvii. 2015's Community Empowerment Act
Making Wednesday Headway. -=-
xviii. Part 3 of the Comm-Emp Act I
My last few Wed-Head posts have been fairly heavy going, so just for
xix. Part 3 of the Comm-Emp Act II
election week I'm travelling light. I shan't go quite so far as to
xx. Part 3 of the Comm-Emp Act III
reveal how I will vote tomorrow, but I will narrow it down and provide
reasons. But first, some good news about dog-fouling:-
-=-
Last week FITCC agreed to fund a pilot scheme to tackle dog-fouling in
Plantation, to the tune of £150. The initial spend will probably be
c.£50 on printed promotional materials (leaflets and posters) and £50
to equip twenty-five volunteers with bio-degradable poop-bags. The
pilot will be a revised and re-imagined version of HRC's Green Dog
Walkers scheme which ran with initial success about a decade ago or
thereabouts. And our re-imagining can be as thoroughgoing as we like,
by the way - there are no rules at this stage.
-=-
That is, unless you count deadlines as rules. That's because "it was
provisionally agreed to synchronise a pilot with Keep Scotland
Beautiful's post-lockdown Summer Clean, which runs from May 28th (see
https://www.communitycouncils.scot/news/2021/summer-clean-up )."
-=-
I was quoting there from my own record of an earlier online meeting
with HRC in late March which began the process - so full credit to
Plantation's Ms C-J Peden for initiating it. I've included the
complete record in postscript below, so if you care about dog-fouling
in Fort William then read the rest of it and put your thinking caps
on, y'all: I'll post about this again very soon but of course and as
always you can contact me directly (see my profile). In the mean time,
tomorrow is polling day - and I luuurve elections...
-=-
I have decided to cast what Americans call a 'split ballot', meaning
to vote for a named candidate on the constituency ballot paper who
isn't in the party that I will support on the regional ballot paper.
Furthermore, I have narrowed down the list of names to the two
candidates with whom I have worked directly, they being the incumbent,
Ms Kate Forbes MSP (SNP), and Cllr Denis Rixson (Lib Dem). I can
testify that both have - to my direct knowledge - performed above and
beyond the call of duty for our area, so it'll be a difficult pick for
me - even in the privacy of the voting booth. Perhaps I'll take a coin
to toss on the day? They're both great local representatives - which
isn't to say the others aren't (or wouldn't be), but hey: better the
devils you know, right? (I kid.)
-=-
Next week I will elaborate a little about a couple of specific
examples of support I've received from Ms Forbes and Mr Rixson
respectively. I don't want to do that in advance of the election
tomorrow: that's a vague nod to the principle of community-council
apoliticality that I affirmed last week and, admittedly, have
infringed above. Tough: credit where credit is due. In both cases the
issue is/was a local one, with party allegiance entirely irrelevant.
Notwithstanding Tip O'Neill's well-known adage that all politics is
local, British politics would probably be a lot healthier if more
people more often voted person than party (although there are limits).
-=-
Having said that, many people will be averse to voting for a candidate
who takes an opposite view on the highly controversial matter of
whether to hold a second independence referendum less than half a
generation** after the first one in 2014. The 'IndyRef2' question will
not determine my vote, but if it will influence yours then you might
note that the parties of Ms Forbes and Mr Rixson fall on opposite
sides of that question - so one or other candidate will certainly fit
your preference, whatever it might be.
-=-
[[ **I allude of course to Alex Salmond's description of IndyRef1 as
"a once in a generation opportunity to chart a better way” in his
foreword to the Scottish Government’s independence 2013 White Paper,
about which please read the Fact Check at
https://www.thenational.scot/news/18159096.fact-check-claim-snp-vowed-indyref-once-lifetime-opportunity/
before you take me to task for including that quotation here. ]]
-=-
-=-
PS:
-=-=- re DOG FOULING: minute of virtual meeting, Friday 26th March -=-=-
-=-
Mark Drayton reported back on a virtual meeting about dog-fouling with
Karin McKay & Mandy MacLeman (HRC TPOs), Tony Dickson (LHA), and Jane
Young (Caol Regen), as well as Clara-Jane Peden (Plantation resident)
and Mark Linfield. (Apologies had been received from Scott Bellwood
(HRC) and ex-Cllr Brian Murphy.)
-=-
Ms MacLeman gave a short presentation describing the 'Green Dog
Walkers' scheme trialled some years ago with initial success but mixed
results overall. The core of the GDW scheme is a pledge always to
carry a 'poop-bag' to give to dog owners, either on request or because
their dog may have fouled (or be about to). MD agreed to co-organise a
re-designed pilot GDW scheme in Plantation, to be extended to Upper
Achintore by ML if reasonably successful.
-=-
Ms Young gave anecdotal warning of a significant increase in the
number of dogs in the locality acquired as companion animals during
lockdown, and proposed creating Dog Parks to manage both fouling and
conduct/training. Ms Peden complained of frequently having to clean
dog dirt from her children's shoes. MD endorsed Ms Young's Dog Park
suggestion and proposed a non-enforceable designation of some smaller
green spaces in Plantation as dog-friendly or dog-free, possibly
employing deterrent measures like strong smells or ultrasound. No-one
was able to say whether some areas could legally be designated as
foulable so MD agreed to enquire about this.
-=-
ML provided an estimate of biodegradable poop-bag costs (3p ea), and a
rough-and-ready calculation yielded costs for a pilot scheme of £100
on bags and £50 max on print publicity (leaflets and posters) for a
total of £150. ML and MD agreed to seek funding from FITCC for a
re-designed GDW scheme to be approved by the CC before rollout. It was
provisionally agreed to synchronise a pilot with Keep Scotland
Beautiful's post-lockdown Summer Clean, which runs from May 28th ( see
https://www.communitycouncils.scot/news/2021/summer-clean-up ).
 
August 2021 (4th, 11th, 18th, 25th)
====Wed-Head ix====
xxi. The Scottish Enlightenment
Making Wednesday Headway. -=-
xxii. David Hume on 'Is' and 'Ought'
Last week I undertook briefly to provide a couple of examples of
xxiii. Scottish Independence
assistance I have received from Ms Kate Forbes MSP and Cllr Denis
xxiv-1. John Stuart Mill's 'On Liberty'
Rixson respectively. I will quite swiftly describe the latter before
turning to the former which is of much more interest to Plantation
residents like me, and where there is in any case rather more to say.
But before I do either, I suppose I ought to inform/remind everyone
that the next FITCC meeting is in six days time, so please do contact
me (see my profile) if you have anything you'd like me to say or do -
or, indeed, if you'd like to join us (that is, via MS-Teams). Oh, and
while I'm at it: I'd still very much like to hear more ideas about how
to reduce dog-fouling since I now have a small budget (£150) for a
pilot scheme to tackle the problem.
-=-
To date, the single most sustained piece of work I have completed as a
community councillor was to research and write a fairly long paper
making the case for a full feasibility study of a pedestri-cyclebridge
linking An Aird to Caol Spit, primarily to halve the walk time between
Caol and Fort William as part of the local 'Active Travel' strategy.
Without taking sides, Cllr Rixson wrote two substantial emails
engaging with my arguments and probing the case that I was putting
forward. My paper does indeed seem to have some influence in getting
a Caol Spit AcTrav Link ('CSATL') considered as an option in the
subsequent work of HRC's 'Feasibility Study and Options Appraisal
Report' for a Lochyside Cycle Link and, if so, that would not have
been the case without Cllr Rixson's engagement and stimulation, for
which I was and remain very grateful.
-=-
Turning now to our highly dynamic and effective MSP, Ms Kate Forbes,
on 6th March last year at my request she convened a meeting at
Plantation Hall with Mark Richardson of Highlife Highland. Ms Forbes
was accompanied by a very pleasant caseworker, Helen Brown, whom I'd
met once before.
-=-
Sadly absent on the night was local businesswoman and Plantation
resident Fiona McCormick, who was keen to attend but was unavoidably
detained. Nevertheless, the four of us present spent the best part of
two hours discussing the significance and potential of Plantation Hall
to the local community, and its relative under-use compared with that
potential. Ms Forbes closely oversaw my negotiation with Mr
Richardson and, implicitly, gave her backing to a fairly radical
shake-up in the way the hall would be managed, establishing a roadmap
leading ultimately to wholesale transfer of ownership to a Community
Interest Company if that was the desire of residents. Moreover, short
of that rather ambitious goal we established several halfway-houses
that would give residents much more say in the running of the hall.
It was a very productive negotiation: Ms McCormick's verdict when she
read the meeting record was that it was "all incredibly positive,"
which was of course gratifying praise for all of us.
-=-
In particular, it was agreed immediately to make the head librarian at
Fort William library the principle keyholder for the hall. This would
not involve library staff actually locking and unlocking the hall, but
rather releasing the key to an authorised person, for example a member
of a group hiring the hall. The net effect would be to localise
control of access to the hall, which is presently done at an absurd
distance by the staff of Caol Community Centre - a totally
unacceptable state of affairs in my opinion.
-=-
Two events followed almost simultaneously: Mr Richardson and I began
an exchange of emails to flush out the details of what I later
christened the 'Forbes-Richardson agreement', and then a really nasty
coronavirus that had escaped from a very dodgy research laboratory in
Wuhan, China three months earlier promptly shut down Fort William
library, putting the whole scheme on indefinite hold. However, the
agreement remains in place and if the same is true of Ms Forbes when
Ms Nicola Sturgeon MSP forms her post-election cabinet, then the
second most powerful woman in Scotland stands ready, I would
anticipate, to underwrite what was arranged well over a year ago as
and when Fort William library re-opens. Let's hope so.
 
September 2021 (1st, 8th, 15th, 22nd, 29th)
====Wed-Head x====
xxiv-2. J S Mill (cont)
xxv-1. Nicholas Wade on COVID's origin
xxv-2. N Wade (cont)
xxvi-1. F A von Hayek on Liberalism
xxvi-2. F A von Hayek on Conservatism
 
October 2021 (6th, 13th, 20th, 27th)
====Wed-Head xi====
xxvii-1. John R Searle defends the "Enlightenment vision"
</nomarkup></nohtml></nowiki>
xxvii-2. J R Searle I (cont)
xxvii-3. John R Searle on language
xxvii-4. J R Searle II (cont)
 
November 2021 (3rd, 10th, 17th, 24th)
xxviii. Ward 21 by-election on 2nd December
xxix-1. My first 'election address'
xxix-2. My second 'election address'
xxix-3. My third 'election address'
 
December 2021 (1st, 8th, 15th, 22nd, 29th)
xxix-4. My eve-of-poll 'election address'
xxx-1. Marking the 80th anniversary of Pearl Harbour
xxx-2. Working out who won an Alternative Vote election
xxx-3. (stub column only)
(n/a). (no column: publication suspended indefinitely)
Retrieved from "https://you.r-fit.cc/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/45...124"