Revision as of 13:14, 1 June 2021

I'm having serious problems with VERY unhelpful 'abuse' filters.

Stuff

WedHeads

<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 ====Wed-Head ii==== 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-Head iii==== 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" ====Wed-Head iv==== Making Wednesday Headway. -=- Following my post about Local Place Plans last week, Mark Linfield mentioned the FW2040 ( https://www.highland.gov.uk/FW2040 ) '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." ====Wed-Head v==== Making Wednesday Headway again. -=- A fortnight ago my Wed-Head post quoted a 2019 ScotGov survey result that "only 18% of adults felt they could influence decisions in their 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." ====Wed-Head vi==== Making Wednesday Headway. -=- In this week's Wed-Head post I am rounding-out the last three with some more research findings, this time at national (ie Scottish) 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 ====Wed-Head vii==== Making Wednesday Headway. -=- I'm staying with planning for this week's Wed-Head, not least to keep myself out of trouble by saying anything about the election: community councils are by convention apolitical and I'm very, very sure that's 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). ====Wed-Head viii==== Making Wednesday Headway. -=- My last few Wed-Head posts have been fairly heavy going, so just for election week I'm travelling light. I shan't go quite so far as to 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 ). ====Wed-Head ix==== Making Wednesday Headway. -=- Last week I undertook briefly to provide a couple of examples of assistance I have received from Ms Kate Forbes MSP and Cllr Denis 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. ====Wed-Head x==== ====Wed-Head xi==== </nomarkup></nohtml>