Transcript

Transcript

• I don't have a bit of live-streaming. It's started. Thank you, Chair.
• Thank you. Good morning, and welcome to the Banffin de Bachenaria Committee on Tuesday the 7th of May 2024. Please note that the public section of the meeting is being live-streamed and will be recorded and published online for public viewing after the meeting. Members should activate their cameras to enable you to join by video and could all attendees please mute the microphones when not speaking. Please do not come in during items unless I invite you to do so. If members wish to speak on any point, please raise your hands in the Teams meeting, or if you have dialed into the meeting, you can raise your hand by pressing star 5. Any member loses connection or has technical issues during the meeting, please allow the Committee officer by a separate instant message. Alternatively, support is available from the nominated ICT officer, Coor today's column. John, could you take the sit-on and please. Thank you, Chair, Councillor Meher.
• Good morning, President. - Councillor Stuart-Adams.
• President. - Councillor Bail, President.
• Councillor Cassie. - President.
• Councillor Cox. - Councillor.
• Thank you, Professor. - Thank you.
• Councillor Logan. - President.
• Councillor Monard. - President.
• And Councillor Reynolds. - President.
• Thank you, Chair. We have a little compliment. I vote.
• First item on today's agenda is the dand accreditation of members and interests. Members, please state if you have an interest to declare, and if you have, please clarify the item number, the nature of the declaration, whether or not you will leave the meeting.
• I see no declarations. The second item is the resolution on equalities. In making decisions on the attached reports, members are reminded of the legal duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimization, advance equality of opportunity between those who share a protected characteristics and persons who do not share it, foster good relations between those who share a protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. The protected characteristics under the legislation are age, disability, gender, reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation and marriage and civil partnership. If you do not agree that resolution on equalities, please open your microphone and say so. The next item is the minute of the meeting of the 16th of April 2024. The minute is for approval only as a correct record only. If you do not agree this as a correct record, please open your microphone and state so now. The next item on today's agenda is item number 4, the list of its standing business at the 30th of April. Angela, could you give us any updates on its standing items, please?
• Yes, good morning Chair. Good morning, earlier Committee. The standard business list is as it's set out with the exception that the date that we expect information to come back on the pins, pen and conservation area review is after the summary says. I think we did set that out last week but this document doesn't seem to have updated. So just to note that Chair and then everything else is noted.
• Thank you, Angela. Members, do you have any questions for Angela? I see no questions.
• Thank you. The next item on today's agenda is item number 5, APP20230248, which is full planning commission for the direction of a dwelling house at land of Strathmaia Lodge, Roman Hill, Bumpf. And today we have Marie Higgins, a planner who is new to the Committee. So welcome Marie. If you'd just like to introduce the item, please.
• Thank you very much. I'm just loading the presentation now. That should be it. Thank you, Chair. This application seeks full planning permission for the direction of a dwelling house at a site to the east of Strathmaia Lodge, Longman Hill. The site is situated in the countryside where there are residential and agricultural buildings situated along the public road of the A98 in a linear form. The site is located in the North Aberdeenshire Coast Special Landscape Area, approximately 0.6 kilometres from the boundary line of the Special Landscape Area, which runs along approximately here as shown by my laser on the screen. I'm happy to come back to that. The development site is a field which sits to the rear of the residential properties of Strathmaia Lodge and Smitty Coft. The site has a slope sloping upwards from west to east and currently has no development on it. The proposal is for a single house at the site. The dwelling would be a four-bedroom, single-storey dwelling with a pitched drift design form. The dwelling would be somewhat set into the hillside due to the slope of the site as shown on the section plan currently on screen. Simple landscaping is proposed consisting of long grass immediately surrounding the dwelling with meadow grass and wildflowers beyond. The dwelling would be accessed by the existing access to Smitty Coft, which would continue on past this residential property to form a driveway, turning area and parking area for the proposed dwelling. The dwelling would make private drainage arrangements and would connect to a private water supply. All technical consultation responses received and acceptable subject to relevant conditions being attached to any approval given. The submitted justification statement notes that the proposed dwelling would be purpose built for a young lady with a protected characteristic to allow her to live more independently. 23 valid representations were received through the public consultation process, all of which support the proposal noting that the development would aid the future occupant. Due to the protected characteristic of a disability being mentioned, an integrated impact assessment was carried out, however no evidence was provided by the agent or applicant to prove that the protected characteristic would benefit as a result of the development, therefore no impact was identified. In policy terms, the main principle of development policies consist of policy R2 of the Aboriginal Local Development Plan and policy 17 of NPA4. The justification statement and cohesive group plan, which is currently shown on screen, advises the justification given for a dwelling house at the site is to add to an existing cluster of houses. In relation to this policy criteria, policy R2 notes that development to extend existing clusters of houses can only be associated with existing clusters consisting of 5 to 14 separate habitable homes. Policy R2 also advises that existing properties within the cluster should relate well to each other through their design, layout and for example it should share cartilage boundaries. There should be a clear relationship between the cluster and the development site. In this instance, the site is not considered to relate well to a cluster of 5 to 14 homes. While there is neighbouring properties to the west and south, only two properties actually share cartilage boundaries with the site. Properties to the south are not considered to relate well to the site due to the separation distance between the properties and the development site. The furthest two dwellings are both located over 200 metres from the development site, separated by fields and farm buildings and therefore is not visually connected to the proposed dwelling. The planning service therefore cannot support the proposal as an extension to an existing cluster of dwellings as there is no existing cluster of 5 to 14 dwellings at the site which the dwelling would be visually connected to. The proposal is also not considered to meet with any other policy criteria noted in Policy R2 of the Aboriginal Local Development Plan nor Policy 17 of NPA4 as discussed in paragraph 6.8 of the report. As noted previously, the agent advised to a supporting statement that development would aid a young lady with a protected characteristic. While no information was provided in support of the application in relation to this condition, it should be made clear that there would still have been no policy justification to allow for a dwelling at the site even if evidence were provided. I'll just move through a few photographs to allow me to move on to the next matter. The site is also located in the North Aberdeen Chircoa Special Landscape Area approximately 0.6 kilometres from the boundary line of the Special Landscape Area. As detailed in paragraph 6.10 of the report, Policy E2 of the Aboriginal Local Development Plan advises that development within a Special Landscape Area in terms of its location, scale, design, materials and landscaping should be of a high standard and enhance the special qualities and character of the Special Landscape Area. The management recommendations for this landscape area note that development should be focused within existing coastal settlements in order to retain the character of the coastal area and should be of a scale, style that respects and complements their coastal characteristics. The planning service therefore requested that the agent address this policy and appendix 13 of the local development plan within the justification statement. The submitted justification statement did not make any mention to the impact on the Special Landscape Area. While the proposed dwelling would be of a simple character and somewhat sent into the hillside, due to the dwelling stating in an elevated position due to the slope of the site, the dwelling is considered to have an adverse impact on the surrounding landscape and is therefore not considered to move to the policy requirements of Policy E2. In terms of the design, the dwelling is considered to be of a suitable sample design and material finished for the context of the site and would not result in any adverse immunity impact to others. However, as noted previously, the sighting of the dwelling is not considered to be acceptable due to this being located within the Special Landscape Area out with this statement and not forming an acceptable cohesive group. To sum up, while the proposal meets with all the relevant technical matters of the Aberdeen Trail Local Development Plan and MPF4 and is of a suitable design, the proposal cannot be supported in principle as there is no policy justification for a dwelling house at the site. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to Policy R2 and E2 of the Local Development Plan and Policy 17 of MPF4 and also the sighting elements of Policy P1 and Policy 14. Can I just clarify at this stage that the last paragraph in the committee report in relation to the termination process was added in error and this should not be included. That's the end of the presentation on this application. Both Jim and I would be happy to answer any questions and I'm happy to go back over any slides and pictures which you would find helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Molly. Can you go back to slide 12, please? Yes, of course. Yes, thank you. Can you with your laser point to where the house should be? I'm trying to figure out those are trees behind the house, isn't it? It would be approximately here. I can go back quickly just in a second to show you this on the plan, to show you how set back it would be from the houses. I'll just leave that there for a second and then if you could see on here's the existing dwelling, smart does five and four. So then they've got their boundary line where the trees would be and then the house would be set back where they're here. Thank you. No, that's fine. And did the agent come back with any reason why the applicant didn't submit proof of disability? No, they did say it was obviously privacy concerns but they did know in the justification statement about the condition. Okay, yeah. Thank you, I hope that answers your question. Thank you. Let me take questions for Marie, please. Yeah, thanks, Chair. I'm working okay. Yes, thanks, Marie. Do the question on the bit about the cluster and you mentioned 6.5 there but this site is not considered to really be well. But no one would help but we all do. That's quite a ribbon to the settlement. And it does relate, but is that really well? Can you expand on that a bit more please? Because it does look like a cluster there with the photograph we got on the presentation we've got there. Can you go into that bit more, please? Yeah, of course. So the policy criteria requires that it should be well related to between five and 14 dwellings. And here you can see there's only two which the dwelling house would actually share cartilage boundary with. And then this further property here is separated by fields. And then another property down here is separated by farm buildings, fields and then this one. When I was actually on site, standing from here, you wouldn't even be able to see the dwelling. And I do understand what you're saying about the linear form of Longman Hill, but we have taken a consistent approach with dealing with clusters that they should be sharing cartilage boundary, something more along the lines of that. So these ones are just just considered to be too far to meet with the policy criteria. Well, yeah, I mean, you say should, but anyway, can come back to that one. And then policy E2, you mentioned about the design and where it is, etc. Well, a lot of those properties along there are actually up on a slope anyway, obviously that they're making the most of the view that they've got across there. So if you can go a bit more about E2 as well, let's see, and it's not within the setting and the design, etc. Thank you. Yeah, I'll just maybe go back to slide 12 to help here. So with Longman Hill, obviously, the dwellings are located in a linear form. So this one would be set quick for a back and elevated to, like you say, take the best views and whatnot, but that wouldn't relate well to the coastal setting, which, so the policy E2 does relate to the special landscape area, and this one is the North Aberdeunter Coast special landscape area, and that wants development to be located in settlement. So obviously, it doesn't want to allow development to overspill. So if there was a cluster here, we could have allowed it, but like we said, with a policy R2, there's no cluster. So with E2, because it's not located in the settlement and it is slightly elevated, it's not considered to align with the requirements of E2. Thank you. And Ken, sir, Cassie, please. Yeah, more of a point that there probably won't be an answer to this. Obviously, the applicant wishes for that dwelling to be close to support given the matters that have been raised. In that, I'm assuming that they are reasonably close at hand, i.e. Longman Hill. To that end, has there been any discussions in relation to adaptations at current location, as opposed to the building of a new house entirely? And if so, would that be of a similar spend, as it were? Any ideas? So I believe it is actually their intention to build a new home for the young lady and her family. So the building would be a four-bedroom dwelling, but the fourth bedroom would have a self-contained unit. So they would all be located in the same home at the site. Nothing does come in in relation to extending an existing house or anything like that. This is the only proposal we've seen in relation to this. Okay, thanks for that for the moment. You're welcome. Thank you. And Ken, sir, Logan. Thank you very much. Good morning, Marie. You're very welcome. I'm very cognizant of Councillor MARRIOR's request, not to give you a hard time, but I do have to ask a question in relation to paragraph 6.7, Marie. I'm curious here why the Planning Service asked for evidence of the future occupants condition here. Why was that now? One must assume that it was trimming into the application? As noted before, even if evidence was provided, that wouldn't change the planning services recommendation, the overall outcome, because there still isn't a policy justification for a dwelling house there. But the Planning Service did ask for this information more to give it to yourselves, the local members, when determining the proposal so you can make an informed decision. So from the Planning Service point of view, it wouldn't have changed the outcome, as in there is no policy justification still for a dwelling house there, but it was more to pass on to yourselves. Okay, so what I'm hearing you say is that if information had been provided, that it would have been relevant in terms of our considerations. Yeah, and for the Planning Service, we couldn't have altered the recommendation, but for yourselves. We would have wanted you to have that information. Okay, thank you. Thank you, and Councillor COX, please. Sorry. All right, you make reference to the setting of the proposed house, but most of us are knowledgeable of that road. We're actually looking downhill, and there's a row of houses behind where the picture has been taken, which would be far more prominent. Did you take that into consideration? But this is, even though you're showing the site has been higher than the houses there, it's still lower, and the impact would be negligible. This image is taken from the public road, so I believe you would see the house when coming along the public road from here. Yeah, because I can see the houses there already, but now I'm talking about the main thing in the setting, because I make a reference to a recent decision was made by the officers recommending approval of an application. The proposal complies with relevant policies, and that the principal reciting and design of the proposal are considered acceptable. There's no reference to all the other policies that went forward as a recommendation on the Greenfield site, so I'm just, in terms of that, is that something that we should consider as well? Thank you. In relation to the principal of development, if we considered that we could have accepted an extension to the existing cluster opposes here, that the siting could have been supported under the policy E2, if I'm understanding what you're asking, but because we couldn't support it in principle under policy R2 due to the siting, we couldn't see that the siting would be acceptable under policy E2 or, in fact, policy P1. If I'm understanding what you're asking? Well, I'll just ask a couple of questions. It's just within consistency in terms of approach, in terms of application. However, you need the relevant point about the siting there, what we're looking at in the picture, and recognizing that a row of houses behind the camera that are far higher and dominant in the landscape. I just want clarity, we'll come back to it maybe later on. Thank you. Amanda, you had your hand up, sorry. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. It was just to come in on Councillor Logan's earlier comment to Miss Higgins regarding the issue of the condition that was referenced by the applicant agent and the status of that. My comment was just simply to reiterate what Miss Higgins said there with regard to policy considerations, but it was, I think, just to clarify exactly what was being said, was that had there been evidence of a condition then that would have been presented to yourselves as a possible material consideration to consider, in addition to the policy considerations. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for that, Amanda. Yes, as Councillors, we had to take all 5,000 to consideration when the application, Jen, you went to come back. Thank you, Chair. Yes, my colleague, Amanda, there's largely beaten me to it in respect to that. It was in response to Councillor Logan's question to Miree about that, and it was just to say that the statement on the specific condition of the daughter and the applicant's case here was largely requested to inform the IIA process, and as Miree very carefully covered in her presentation earlier on, that information wasn't provided and therefore we weren't able to conclude the full IIA. Thank you. Thank you, and that's why it's not included in the report. Correct, Chair. Yes. Thank you. Councillor CASSY. Councillor CASSY, you're a mute. I thought we was. I apologise for that wrong button at that time. Having just heard both of those comments, just, I would suggest that these papers were incomplete. I would want to see that IIA. We do need to understand the materiality and the weight that's applied to that when it comes to making the decision. For it not to be in the papers, I suggest that we do not have all the information we require. Thank you, Councillor CASSY. I think I'll let the mind recommend. Thank you, Chair. Through self-care, with regard to Councillor CASSY's comment there, I don't think it's a case that the papers are incomplete. I think the planning service have brought the application to you, and has fallen completely state as they would wish to do so and that they've brought it to committee accordingly. What the planning service have done is that they have explained the position with regard to the IIA and that the applicant was requested for information when there was mention of a possible condition. There was no evidence forthcoming on that point. So the IIA that the planning service have got or were able to do is as much as they were able to do. On that basis, they have brought the application to committee in as full and complete opposition that they can do. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Amanda. So, Chair, I'll let you come in first. Thank you, Chair. It was just a backup of what Amanda said there, and following on from Councillor CASSY's comment about the incomplete papers, Amanda's largely covered it, but for the point I wish to make is that we can't force the applicants or the agents to submit the additional information that we requested here. As Maria covered that earlier on, they were asked to provide further information. They declined to do so for their own reasons. I would suggest that if this item is deferred for that reason, we could still find ourselves in a position where they could still decline to submit the information that had been requested earlier. Thank you. Thank you, Jim. Can I just clarify any information is obviously the same stuff to the family and to the person concerned. Is it possible for that information to be totally confidential so that it doesn't come into the paper itself? Yes, yes. We would keep that confidential. We would just make very slight reference to it in the report and pass it on to yourselves. Okay. And just for further clarity, if the committee would state the decision to defer this paper, could the planning service go back to the applicant and ask that that information be supplied in order not to make a fair determination on this application? Yes, we could go back. And as Jim said, it would be up to them whether they provided that or not. Thank you. Amanda, you want to come in or is that historic? No, yes. Thank you, Chief. I may just as a follow-up to a midi engine there. I think a midi did cover in our presentation the point that even if there was evidence of a condition, the midi has covered the fact that in terms of the legal test, when you're determining an application, the legal test is that you have to have due regard to the development plan. So that's the policy matters that midi was talking about there and a midi made reference to the fact that even if there were, even if there was a material consideration in this case to the effect of there being a condition, that the policy considerations, that would not weigh the policy considerations. Obviously, that is the planning services view. It's not a matter. It's not the planning committee, any committee meeting, a different view. But I'm wondering if it might help to members if they want to consider the principle of development before they consider whether they think they wish to look at any other matters. It's just a possible steer forward chair. Thank you. Thank you, Amanda. I do think that material consideration when it comes to area committee is rather pertinent. But I'll take in Councillor Minnan and then Councillor Logan if it's questions for officers, please. It's not so much a question for officers. It's a proposal actually that I think the my biggest concern with this is the positioning of the building and everything else in regards to the cluster and everything else. So I was going to actually say, I think I would like a site visit. Well, we can take that at the discussion stage as a reminder. Thank you, and Councillor Logan. Thank you, Chair. So, Amanda, just for me, Tease, there's a little bit, please, without prejudice to the committee's decision, is it correct to say that if evidence were submitted that the committee believed was material that despite the policy considerations, we may give that greater wit and consideration of the application. Please, thank you. Is that from a self-chair? Yes, Amanda, sorry. Thank you, Chair. And for yourself, Chair, thank you, Councillor Logan. The legal test is that the decision maker has to have due regard to the development plan. So that is your policy consideration. So that's where you go first. And the caveat is that unless material considerations indicate otherwise. So whether there is a material consideration that comes into play here is a matter for yourself, as the decision maker, to have a think about, and what weight you give it, and whether the weight is such that without weight, the policy considerations of your development plan, that, again, is a matter for the decision maker. Thank you, Chair. That's from a question. Yes. Thank you. I can see no further questions for the officers. So committee discussion, please. Councillor from Lata. Thanks, Chair. I'm going to discuss, it's 6.5 in there, and one of the reasons, the policy reasons for recommending it, not approval, but that there should be a clear relationship between the cluster and development site. Now, we wouldn't long went hell on as it's said for the planet. It's a linear settlement, and the development is going along the E98. And looking at the map there, the buildings, this says rather the site is not considered to relate well. Why do you think it does relate to this cluster? And that's my viewpoint on it. And as far as the siting, et cetera, well, that comes, I think, secondary, because you've got the predominant cluster as part of the settlement. So as far as the points on E2, the design and the setting, that covers that as well. So we're discussing that. I mean, Councillor Coxe was coming to the map as well, but the site and the design of it. So it tees that one out, but in my opinion, it is part of a cluster, and it is within the settlement of Longman Hell, because it's a linear settlement. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Bail. Yeah, I would support what Councillor Fillet has said, but I'm looking at page five of the plan, and this is a house that's always been built to support somebody, you can see from the plan that there's a flat at the end of the house for somebody with a protected characteristic. And I think we have to give some material consideration when we're looking at that. This is a purpose-built house for somebody with a protected characteristic, even if you look at the plan. But I support what Councillor Fillet has said as well. Knowing Longman Hell and driving past it, it is as he says. So that's my Councillor Burton. Thank you, and Councillor Logan. Yes, thank you. Yeah, I understand the point, my colleague, Councillor Bail, is making there a load to be completely clear here until we have evidence before us that there's material. That can't really be taken into consideration. However, my colleague beside me, Councillor Bernard, is suggesting a site visit. I would concur with that. I think that might be very helpful. And I would like to be clear that if we were to do that, would that provide time for the planning service to again request submission of evidence that might be material to the consideration of the case? Thank you, Councillor Logan. We'll check on the statements at the end of the discussion. Councillor Cox, please. Yeah, thanks. If it's a proposal for a site, I think it does deserve some merit considering some of the points have been raised. I mean, I expect above the need, it's the proposal to build a house and a location that could be appropriate. And I think the name gives it away. Longman Hell, it's a well-known settlement. And that's what we're considering here is an extension test settlement, which would have no direct impact to the consequences of a single house in the countryside at the other settlement. So if there was a proposal, I think it deserves merit. So we have all the information. I'm not so concerned about the residents that will be in the house. It's more the impact of the house because containing that situation might change. That's my indicating my support, if there's one come forward for a site visit. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Cox. I see no fall bell hands. I presume that's a historical hand consultant, but we can put it up again, can you? I'm here to be about a site visit, but I think we've got to feel that the area in the settlement quite well, maybe test it as a proposal and putting it through the accept. But just to be clear on my policy reasons, I do think there's a clear relationship between the cluster and development site itself, and that would cover the siting and all the other recommendations as far as policies concerned. I'll hear nobody about the protected characteristic as well with this, but I'm just going to be getting it from the planning officer, if that's a correct reason for accepting the proposal. Marie, do you want to come back, Councillor Shin, but as asking if, and is it which policy number are to, and the assumption that it is part of a cohesive development, development would be a fair assumption from the Committee? So, can I just clarify your asking if that would be the reason to approve? Yes. If the Committee decided that that was part of the cluster, Councillor Findler, I want to clarify if that would be a reason to agree the application. Yeah, I think that would allow you to move forward. Do you agree with that, Jim? Come in there, Chair, as has been said earlier by Amanda, and I think she's got her hand raised there again, may be a bit weird to make the same point again. This is a matter for Committee. If Committee take the arrow of the opinion and their conclusion that what's been shown here in terms of the application is in accordance with policy and they give clear reasons why so then that forms the decision of Committee. It would still, however, it remains the recommendation of officers and the opinion of officers as contained in the report that this is not in accordance with policy. Perhaps Amanda would like to come in again, as she had her hand up earlier, probably to cover that very point. Thank you. Thank you. Amanda, were you covered in that point? I was going to touch on that. Thank you, Chair, but it was also, I think, to cover yourself, Chair, so I think that there's a point about the alleged protected characteristic and I'm just using my words carefully just because of the nature of the IAE in this particular case and that I was just going to come in on that point and the materiality of that point is, I think, if members were wanting to give materiality to that, in case Logan was clarifying that issue earlier, I think there's a lack of evidence on that issue as things stand. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Okay, Councillor CASSIDY and then Councillor Fimleta. Yeah, I disagree to an extent with Councillor Fimleta. I'm in favour of and would support the site visit suggestion. I would, in my thinking, with decisions that we have taken previously, this does not fit with the cluster as such as it's been stuck in the middle of something as opposed to stuck on the end of something and is out with the linear approach that there is in this area. The materiality of the addition may be of sufficient weight to depart from policy, but without that in hand, I don't know. I would be in favour of that attempted to be got and as such, I would support the proposal for the site visit. Thank you, Councillor CASSIDY. I think we've reached the end of the discussion stage and I think it's fairly obvious that some of our committee do not think we have the necessary information, but I will now ask for a motion, please, hence that, Councillor interjecting. Yeah, my proposal that we have a site visit because I'm not free. I'm happy with the writing or proposal in the building and also we need further information for the other bits that we've been discussing. Thank you. Thank you, and Councillor Fintlitter. Yeah, no thanks, Chair, and thanks, Councillor for that. Yeah, second, a site visit. I would listen to everybody and some folks have written some more information for all really good reasons, so can I agree with Councillor CASSIDY, et cetera, that we have a site visit, so that's fine. Thank you. Do we have an amendment? I see no amendment. I think it would also be pertinent to ask the Planning Department to go back to the applicant and ask if they would be willing to put in some proof of the issues raised in here absolutely confidentially, of course. If that's possible, please, Marie. I can certainly do that, yes. Thank you. Amanda, you wish to come back. Thank you, Chair. It was just to clarify the reasons for the site visit on the motion there. I've got it as Councillor Maynard saying not fully happy with the sighting of the proposed dwelling house within the site. Is that with regard to its relationship to the nearby settlement and just to see the location of the proposed dwelling and how it sits in the landscape or how it sits in relationship to the nearby settlement. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, that's all of that and a bit more, actually. I'm just wondering whether it does come in within the roommate of a cluster, but also exactly your own site. Thank you. Thank you. The decision on the committee is to defer APP202030248 for the site visit to be arranged. Thank you. Okay, and thank you, Marie. I hope that wasn't too dramatic on your first visit to the committee. No, thank you very much for your time there. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Okay, the next item on today's agenda is APP20240022, which are alterations and extension to a dwelling house at 22 Wilson Crescent White Hills. We have Lindsay Geddes presenting this paper and we have a request to speak. Committee, are we content to hear Mr Ritchie, please? Thank you. Can you call in Mr Ritchie, please? Thank you, Chair. I'm admitting Mr Ritchie or hopefully Mr Ritchie. Good morning. Is that Mr Ritchie? Good morning, Mr Ritchie. Can you hear me? Good morning. Yes, I can hear you. That's great. Thank you, Mr Ritchie. Mr Ritchie is in the meeting now. Thank you. Good morning, Mr Ritchie. Good morning. Good morning. In line with the guidance you have received, please, can you mute your microphone when not speaking if your phone permits this. You can unmute your phone using the code Star 6 when required. Please do not speak unless I invite you to do so and please do not interrupt the other speakers. If you do, you may be removed from the meeting. You will be given five minutes in total to speak and after that, members may ask you questions. You will then be entitled to remain in the meeting although your microphone will be muted and you are not entitled to speak again. Once the committee decision has been made, you will be asked to leave the meeting. I'm sure you understand, Mr Ritchie. Yes, thank you. Thank you. Lindsay, could you present the paper, please? Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Councillors. Can I just check you can see the presentation before you? Yes. Perfect, thanks. Okay, so this application is for full planning permission for the alterations in extension to the existing dwelling house at 22 Wilson Crescent in White Hills. The site lies within the settlement boundary and it's a semi-detered single-story house with its immediate neighbour lying to the south. This slide shows both existing and proposed site plans is proposed to direct an extension off the west elevation to the front of the house and the extension would be 7.2 metres long by 2.4 metres wide. There is an existing garage located to the rear of the house that is accessed by a driveway that is shared with the neighbour to the north and there is a small sun lounge extension off the rear elevation. This slide shows the elevations. The eaves level of the extension is 2.5 metres to match the existing house and the ridge height would be 4.4. The proposed roof is of a hip design and members can see that the height is lower than the main ridge line which sits at 5.7 metres. The end of the extension would be a distance of 1.2 off the front garden boundary as shown on the ground floor plan to lower right-hand side of your screen. The materials are Afton cream dry dash rounder with slate roof and windows are proposed off the south and east elevations. So this is what the dwelling looks like from the street at the present time. A dwelling house being the one in the middle of the screen with the white windows. As you can see the house is of a traditional form with granite walls and slate roof. The front garden is enclosed by a 1.2 metre high wall. This is a street view from the south looking towards the row of Singostore Cottages along well-synchronous. The dwelling that is proposed to be extended is the one with the white coloured windows again just behind the lamp post which is in the foreground on your screen. This is the street view from the north side looking south and you can see that there is an established building line present along the west side of the street. This is just some more views of the front elevation of the house. This area of photo shows the site and context and I've included this so that members can see the pattern of development on their adjacent streets. The houses in the vicinity sit at right angles to the streets with the exception of the corner plots where the dwellings lie at a 45 degree angle. All dwellings are set back from the street level and have reasonable sized front garden grounds. In policy terms P3 as defined in the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan allows house extensions provided it respects both the character of the surrounding area, the design and scale of the existing house and policy 16 of MPF4 supports household development where it will not have a detrimental impact on a character or environmental quality of the existing dwelling in the surrounding area in terms of size, design and materials. This part of bussing crescent is quite distinctive with the traditional single storage railings and three blocks that's number 10 to 24 being set back from the street by around 9 metres and this forms a distinctive street scene character. The dwellings further south along Jubilee crescent number 2 to 8 also reflect the same building line as do the dwellings along Forbes Road and Skool Road. To build forward of the principal elevation by 7.2 metres we would be out of keeping with the established pattern of development. The scale of the extension would appear visually over or dominant on the front elevation and its prominence within the immediate townscape is considered to be detrimental to the character of the rows of terraced and semi-detached blocks in the pattern of development in the immediate area would be altered to such an extent it would have a detrimental impact on the open aspect that currently exists within the street scene. The character would be eroded as I've said and a land desirable precedent would be set to the detriment of a visual amenity currently enjoyed in this part of White Hills. In assessing the impact on neighbours it is concluded that given the separation distance of 4.1 metres between the house and the neighbour to the north and the fact that the extension is single story at only 2.5 to the eaves that is unlikely to be any significant overshadowing or overbearing impacts. In terms of privacy the proposed windows of a south elevation are 7 metres from the common property boundary with the neighbour to the south. However given that the extension is on a public facing elevation at the front and that those windows would overlook the front garden and therefore the inclusion of windows is considered to be acceptable in this case. So the main issue with the extension is the impact it will have on the street in that by nature of its size will appear incongruous with the pattern of development in the street and wider area. It fails to comply with policies P1 and P3 of the Aberdeenshire Local Development Plan and policies 14 and 16 within MPF4 and it's for this reason that the application is recommended for refusal. That concludes my presentation Chair. I'm happy to take any questions. Thank you Lindsay. I have Councillor Reynolds. Thank you Chair and thank you Lindsay. Can we have a look please go back to the slide that shows the positioning of the single stop? That's it. Yeah. I mean looking at that there in terms of the pattern of development. I note that paragraphs 6.7 and 6.8 in the report refer to the proposals in Congress. That image there illustrates to me that you've got the whole series of beautiful looking single story buildings and then there's been a pattern of development which is clearly in contrast with the property under consideration now. So my question is, is that what we can see now in Congress but it was allowed in terms of the, I mean quite clearly it's not single story and therefore I'm asking the question at this stage whether it would be on Julie Harsh to comment on how the extension as proposed would be in Congress when we have that image in front of us which shows a markedly different form of development having evolved. Lindsay if you understand what I'm getting at. Thanks. Thanks Councillor. Are you deferring to the two story dwellings? What are you deferring to? If you look at the single story and then you've got the house situated there. In terms of incongruity is that not in itself rather strange and therefore unduly harsh to allow an extension to the house when the pattern of development shows quite markedly a difference from single story into double story. Thanks Councillor. I'll try and answer that. I think the main issue with this one is the building line. There is a mix of two story and single story dwellings in the vicinity as you would see along more streets in the settlement so the fact that there's a two story house it's still set back from the main public road there by a certain distance. It's still got a substantial size front garden ground and I think the point that I try to get at is that the building line with this one would be significantly breached whereas all the dwellings regardless of whether they are single story or two story respect to the current building line and they are set back from the pavement level. Does that answer your question, Councillor? Yeah I understand what you're saying. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Angie. Councillor Cox. Sorry I used the wrong button. Is there not a house for the other street? Is that showing in there if you were to turn round which you can't do but you can't in Google Maps. From the down the street there is an extension is another case but you can't see. You can see in Google Maps when you go down but for up there we are daughters. It's not an extension already in some of the houses. That's Councillor Cox. Yes I believe that as an extension of the front elevation of one of the two story properties cited much further along Jubilee Crescent to the south. However, on looking at the checking and planning history of that application I believe the extension only extends a three metre distance into the front garden area in comparison to this one which obviously is extending 7.2. That is what the proposal is so it's substantially more than the one that has been accepted further along the street. Does that answer your question, Councillor? Yes, I just want confirmation now. Thank you very much. Thank you. I see no further indications for questions still Lindsay. So we will ask Mr Litchie to raise the committee. Mr Litchie, you have five minutes. Thank you very much again. Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the continuous moment. The proposals are, as Lindsay Gather said, is to extend the existing single story property 22 Wilson Crescent, former additional accommodation. Our clients, Mr and Mrs Murray, are looking to create a bigger kitchen on a kind of family, a family room. Now the extension is proposed off what would be the existing kitchen which is now becoming a utility room because it's quite small. Now another opinion, that's really the only potential place where I can make this extension because we can't extend on the west side on the north-west corner because you've got the sun lounge in the garden entrance. We don't really want to extend on the south-east corner which is on the street front is the same size of the extension because that might have an overshot of an effect in 24 and equally on the south-west corner make the similar effect. So the reason the extension sure is because it ties in with existing lakes and it provides additional accommodation, Mr and Mrs Murray require. As the Lindsay Gathers were seeing in the comments, the impact on any neighbourhood properties is limited or negligible because the distances from them on the south and also the ones to the north and the distance to the garden wall and then there's a shared access. So there's no impact in number 20 with the extension in terms of overbead and they are an overshadowed. So in terms of the site and we think the site is acceptable because there are no negative impact on the neighbourhood properties. In terms of the design of the extension, we don't agree that the extension would be dominant because it's water in the existing house and equally the proposed finishes with tie-in, which slips to the roof, we're going to a buff dry dust rounder which we tie in the store work in terms of colour and white PVC windows which the existing house has and it's not a conservation area so that's not just a different issue. So in terms of materials and finishes, we would say that if they didn't keep in with the house and the scale is not over dominant over there and on the existing house because it's actually all the world rich. And in terms of the other potential aspects of it, the accommodation is required and rather a moving house which we can as obviously are big upheaval, they're like where they are with Mr. Murray. In terms of surrounding area, there are extensions to the two-story properties further to the south. So there is actually been alterations in the frontage of them as well. So I don't think that this is a unique case, there are several examples. And as Carris Mark Gopbs mentioned, he is a way from Google Street, do you have other properties which have been extended on the front. So in terms of the PCP1, we think the expansion, basically keeping, it's going to be a negative impact on the area and there's no impacts on different properties. On the design, we think it's just, it ties in with the existing house in terms of scale on, we hopefully think that the application would send an undesirable precedent and can be supported. So I think I was definitely going to want to see, because I think that was the main thing, that the design on the scale on the location, well, we couldn't extend anywhere else to the house because they would have impacts on neighbors. So it is the best location. And the accommodation is definitely required because they need a bigger kitchen on additional accommodation because they grew in farmer needs, can have additional bedrooms and all that. So I think that's all I would like to see and thank you for the opportunity to address the committee this morning. Thank you, Mr Aldechee. Four minutes, well done. Okay, questions for Mr Aldechee, Councillor Logan. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Mr Aldechee. Excellent. If Lindsay will be kind enough to bring up slide nine, please, which shows the aerial view. Mr Aldechee, would you agree that conventionally extensions of this nature are usually built to the rear of such properties? Well, there is examples on a jubilee cress that are further along, which harbox for the extensions on the front. So there is examples where the extensions on the front. So I'm just saying conventionally, would you agree that extensions of this kind are usually built to the rear of properties? Well, this was at the rear that we permitted development. So I could design them from the winter, but they shoot the rear as we've got the garage in the sun lounge. So we can't look at it there. And then if it's on the southwest corner, that's going to have a possible impact on more 24 hours. So the rear in this case is not really an option, unfortunately. But yes, conventionally, I'm looking at clearly that kind of comment. That seems a reasonable comment to make. Thank you. If you look at that picture, you'll see two doors up, not the immediate member, but the two doors up. I believe that looks like an extension to the rear there. Am I right? Well, unfortunately, when I'm looking on this team speaking online, I'm actually going to hate you. So I'm not looking at the images. You're looking at them, unfortunately. Absolutely. So I can't see that image just now, unfortunately. I mean, I'll come up shortly with it. That's what I'm standing for. I think it looks like an extension to the rear, but thanks Mr. Ritchie. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I see no further questions for Mr. Ritchie. Mr. Ritchie, can you confirm you've had a fair hearing this morning? Yes, Mr. Ritchie. Yep. Thank you. Thank you. You're my friend. I've been muted. Committee discussion, please. Can I start a call? Yes, but I would like to go on and build on the point it was making earlier. Then I live in myself in an area of similar type of housing, and it's got a quite distinctive character. And it just seems to me that the proposal here would potentially damage the character of the area and are lost in a way the applicant wouldn't have considered a redesign of the rear of the property, thereby maintaining the characteristics at the front. That's just a comment. Thank you. Thank you. And Councillor Reynolds. Thank you, Chair. I differ somewhat, not least because there are, I think Councillor COCKS makes the substantive point for me in terms of the properties which do exist already to the south. And it seems to me that in the context of those properties to the south, and also the nature from single story into the houses that we've seen portrayed in the slides, this is about a question of degree, therefore, as Lindsay has said, extensions to the south tend to be shorter. So we're talking about is the extra extension, as it were, in terms of measurement, is that material? And I'm not sure it is, actually, not least because there is no negativity surrounding adjacent properties. If there was some privacy over shattering, et cetera, et cetera, then I think that would be material for me. But in this case, that does not apply. So we're talking about what is different here from the other properties to the south. And I think I'm leaning towards thinking that it's unduly harsh on the applicant not to allow this when there are no negative considerations to adjacent properties, looking at the wider context, thanks. Thank you, Councillor Reynolds, Councillor COCKS. Yeah, just before we went from right, certainly looking at the street view and talking about the character of the street, it is quite a mix of house styles from traditional stone to more modern style. I think the only way we can judge this is having a site visit, that's where I'm sitting at the moment. I'm not putting it forward as a proposal, I want to extend for that discussion. But we are talking about the character of the street, and that can only be taken into consideration by looking at what is there already, to see if this extension would blend in. So my thoughts. Thank you, Councillor COCKS and Councillor Tindlita. Yes, that's right. Can I go and then the same sort of line? And the reasons for it, the reasons for it, for a visual amenity of the area, along can I go in the same lines, you've got the two story properties to the south. Rather, property is similar, so I can't see it being oppressed and set with this one, it's actually the plan I commit with that one. So, and it's not a conservation area, not listed buildings, so I can't see any reason why. I think the R has been overly harsh, so I can agree in with the points that Councillor Reynolds was making. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Filant. I've seen a further indications. I think not knowing the area well myself, I think probably would clarify things in my own mind, if I did go up and put a site visit. Councillor COCKS, you wish to come back, but you wish to put forward a motion. Okay then. Okay, so I don't think we have necessary information, so I think we'll ask for a motion on that basis. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, and Councillor ADAMS. I didn't have my microphone on, everyone picked that up. Sorry, I think my proposal would be for a site visit in planning terms to consider the impact of the development in the locality, considering there are different designs of houses under other extensions to some of the houses, so I'm based on that site visit to determine the character and the impact of the extension. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor COCKS. Councillor ADAMS, you wish to, Stuart ADAMS, you wish to say in that motion. I do, thank you, Chair, and support Councillor COCKS's motion. Thank you. Thank you. Do I have an amendment? No. Therefore, the decision of the committee is to defer application APP 20240022 for a site visit to be arranged and deferred to the next cycle. Thank you. I think we'll take a short recess if we come back at 10.50, please, and if folk would switch off the cameras and the microphones, please, that would be helpful. Thank you. And if we could stop the live streaming and thank you. Sorry, Chair, can I just check what time you said to come back? 10.50.

Transcript

It's a confirmation about the live stream, it's a strategy. Thank you. Thank you. The next item in today's agenda is item number seven, which is the road and infrastructure work update for 24/25 and updates on the 23/24 works. We have Stuart Ingram presenting the report. We also have Durie Elder, both Drew Rhodes, Graham Lee for Bridges, Lee Watson and Andrew Gay-Diss for Coast and Protection and Williams and for Harbour. And if members could note that there is an error in the paper, which refers to am PENDXG still to be added, whereas PENDXG is actually in the paper. Stuart, could you introduce the paper, please? Thank you, Chair. This report, 16 foreign members about the available funding for the service and how it intend to be used. Once again, it sees the road and infrastructure service maintaining engagement with the committee by providing an update on the delivery of previously planned work and an indication of the priority of future works, providing better information to members in plan work and progress with the delivery is something that the service has committed to improving. The PENDXG is to report show planned activities and schemes funded both from revenue and capital. It has the authority to approve revenue spent proposals and make comment in this case to YSC on the capital proposals. With regard to the road maintenance in particular, the available revenue funding has been more focused this year on carageway and fruit-made patching works. This reflects a greater demand for repairs, it recognises that allocated funding in this and previous years is insufficient to meet the steady status or condition. It is therefore expected that a greater number of road defects will be compared to previous years and fewer preventative schemes will be carried out. As previously agreed, the service is moving away from a fixed programme of works for the year. In an effort to be more responsive to members, events, funding and asset condition information, the service has developed a bit, a bit dynamic list of prioritised works at present those lists are not exhaustive, but they do exceed the available current funding. We expect to have a system placed later this year to allow members site of the prioritised list, which will show where any scheme sits on the list and the plan delivery date. The budget challenges faced across the council do have an impact on the type and amount of work that we will be carrying out. The budget setting closes once again seeing a substantial reduction in the availability of capital funding for improvement and preventative maintenance work. In addition to the budget reductions, the construction and inflation rates have meant that the amount of work delivered per pound has been reduced. The service has been instructed to absorb these inflation and rate costs. The list of schemes within the penises due to be delivered within this financial year is considerably shorter than in recent years. The annual status and options report produced by the service sets out the impacts of various investment scenarios, so carrying out less preventative maintenance will in this and future years mean that more reactive work will be required. This approach is not one recommended by industry because of practice, but it is unavoidable at the current funding levels. A penises shows the proposed budget allocations for road revenue and capital funding activities. The split of available revenue funding across activities, e.g. patching veg maintenance and lighting repairs reflects the condition of the asset and the expected demand for these activities. For transparency, the split across council areas has also been shown. The area split uses a number of relevant data sets, road length, pre-classification - excuse me - a fruit-based length, road-conditioned survey, data, population, number driven needs basis in - sorry, excuse me - to a portion of available budget on a - sorry, again, that sentence. This area split uses a number of relevant data sets, road length, pre-classification, fruit -based length, road-conditioned survey data, population, number of sheet lights, number of giveaways, etc. to a portion of the available budget on a data-driven needs basis in broad terms. The aim in roads is to meet our level of service for reactor repairs, achieve our cycle of maintenance standards of service using first cutting and aligning and to maintain the condition of the road asset. The split of available capital funding in roads is aimed at maintaining the condition of the road service and improving road drainage and fruit recognition. The submitted programme is sufficient - insufficient to maintain the road service at its current condition. The sheet lighting proposals include the ongoing conversion of lighting to LED, which approximately is 95% complete. It also includes an allowance for removal of structurally weak columns. We do not have a budget to remove and replace all weak columns - we will replace those of higher priority, addressing crossings, bloody junctions, etc. but some columns will be removed made safe and not replaced this year. An area allocation of winter budget has not been shown - the winter service, the standards based service, consistent across our venture and resources are directed to areas depending on weather conditions and the effects they are having on the travelling public. The out-turn winter cost can be very considerably depending on the severity of the winter. The winter budget has increased by around £3 million and the equivalent value the reserve has been removed. Appendices B&C show details of the capital of the road schemes in this area. They show what schemes were delivered last year and what the priorities are for this year. Appendix D&E shows the 223/24 bridge programme that provides an update on these works. Appendix F shows the proposed bridge works in this area, in this area it's a 24/25. This production process is in line with the approved Abringer wide model. Appendix G includes the budget summary for harbors cost, cost of protection and flooding for 24/25. Appendix H and I detailed the delivery of last year's plan works and the priorities for this year in relation to flooding and cost of protection. Appendix G and K detailed the harbour works delivery in 23/24 and the revenue capital funded priorities for this year. As it stands, this report seeks the committee to approve all from this committee for the revenue funded works proposed in Baden-Buckin and any comments on the proposal for the capital funded works within Baden-Buckin. I hope the members find support informative and myself and my colleagues would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Chair. Thank you and thank you very much for your report, Stuart. I have against that cocks. Thank you, Stuart, for your report. Are you able to talk in some detail about getting bogged down in the harbors? I'm just looking at page 133 and there's quite a lot of projects there. There's no funding to approve them as capital and revenue. So the heading prioritised list, no, to be that, does that mean it could be delivered or that it's going to be sitting there as a list but without the revenue or capital to deliver? I'm clearly concerned with my colleagues in MacDuff. Thank you. I will ask one of the colleagues to come in with that, things on. From what I can see in terms of cocks through your chair, is this would be a priority list for the funding that would be available, if available, I would have thought. That would be the list, the other way but I don't want you to see names in the call. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, I'm jumping in front of the MacDuff Councillors but I won't do it real in terms of that funding because the next annual funding opportunities to try and deal with the restrictions or constraints that we have as our nature so where you can respond to that now or later is how we get the funding because quite clearly you've got some big chunky items there and whatever it costs today will be significantly higher in future years without additional funding. Thank you. We now have Anand and the call who is specifically here to address our policy issues on. Good morning. Yes, sir, cocks, can you repeat your question, please? Thank you. I'm looking at page 3-3, all the list of items for the harbors and it's a lot higher than the budget. It's allocated. How will this be addressed? The priority list that we avoid any future consequences of not spending this money and considering the funding gap between what we have and the use of external grant funding. Are there applications going forward and what would be the mitigation should some of these repairs go ahead and the consequences of potential loss of revenue? It's a fairly lengthy question, quite hard for me to find. If you picked up the basis of the question, because we're going this in front of us and it's almost like we're endorsing this if we spend, but we're clearly not because we don't have the budget to do it now. Well, I think the first part of your question was, so we've had to actually risk assess what we are actually spending the budget on this year. It's not enough to do all that appears that we would recommend, so we have taken the highest risk areas to concentrate on this year. I do believe we are applying for external funding for some of the works. I think that's the last point that you made, we need clarity on that and that is the process and timeline to ensure that we meet any deadlines. We have the resources to apply for grants, we have the projects. Thank you. Can we take that offline then and ask for an update back, because I can't obviously address it yet, Chair, I agree with that, I think we do need that information back in detail and further respect, as I've been put on the spot, so I wasn't expecting to give me the detail on, so just look forward to it and thank the Chair for having a recommendation. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Logan. Thank you. Stuart, this is a question for yourself. All the first things I did after I was elected two years ago was to drive the A952 as Phillip McRiggan. This is the arterial route between the Cortez junction and the toll of burnis, and I led to Phillip at that time where a number of improvements which had been made to that route, but which had resulted in a loss of white lines at the center of the road, cat size in the middle of the road, an adequate signage, a number of junctions, to be fair, Phillip agreed with me that there were several issues that were identified, which he hoped have included in future programs of work, but I didn't see anything on, I think it's appendix three dealing with the A952, Stuart, so I think you didn't say that this was not completely comprehensive list earlier, so what school is there for instead, or re-instating some works on the A952 to be instead those issues that I've mentioned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for looking through your chair. I have to, yes, it's the toll route from Facebook right down to the '90 through to Ellen, it's all based within our, in booking, the other plug later, so this schemes within this paper would not be included in both booking, however, the booking in the committee would have that information. In relation to the A952 itself, I am under the original engineer for the NOAA, so I actually look after Bob Booking, also, so the A952 is part of my pot try. As I've been most days, yes, there is some improvements to lining and studs that have been done previously, they have been done over there, again, it depends on the funding. The revenue side of the budget would go so far, but then that includes all the roads as well within booking, and it was in, I guess, on the Bob Booking, if you say you do one road that A98, 20 way through Bob Booking, that would be somewhat a A952, you would look forward to prioritise the worst it is, you'd be prioritising a double-line systems in particular, make sure they're all lined. There is plans to do some maintenance lighting this year, however, it's not exhausted, we'd have to probably prioritise them the budget we have at the moment, which means that we probably looking for funding for a capital from the road safety budget or something like that, it wouldn't be coming through our maintenance. We do our maintenance as best we can for junctions on the A952 or junction on the main roads, but we wouldn't have that big list of lighting to be done on any sort of road, we'd have to be prioritised for that, if that makes sense.

• Yes, thank you, that's very hard for me to do at BC, but some of that particular road lights outside our area, however it is, the main connection between Fraser Bear and, as you say, Alan. There was a public consultation earlier this year with regard to our particular road as well, so one can expect the outcome of that consultation to begin to feature in your future pounds, please, thank you.
• For me, I've not seen any colleges do through myself, through maintenance colleagues, probably with our road safety and through, I think it would be our transportation colleagues who would be going to the report, see what the recommendations are, progressing them through to then ask us as maintenance to then go and complete works for them, obviously depending on the budget that we have, so it would be through probably the, well, our colleagues, but I can get information to you if it requires and go back always and ask them if the proposals from that consultation have come through and what the actions are.
• All right, so I think I'm hearing you say that we might expect to see this feature in next year's priorities, is that what you're saying?
• You wouldn't see it in this committee, you would probably have to, it would be in our booking area committee, it would be for that.
• Thank you.
• Thank you.
• Thank you. And Councillor Fenderta.
• Yeah, thanks to you. I was just taking a night going a bit further about the harvest, I do welcome, I know that there's a lot of local concerns specifically about the lighthouse pier and if you can give a bit more detail in the prioritised list that we've got there, specifically about the lighthouse pier, it says start to the work there, so really, I know it goes like boxes. Thank you for your call, a bit of armour, but just to connect underline that there is work going to be carried out as far as the capital. But just as a preamble to yourself on, if you can go further as to actually the works that are, but to be carried out, thank you.
• Yeah, so one of the major projects we have at McDuff, this year is works to repair the undermining at the lighthouse pier. The tenders are currently out for that and they're due back on the 22nd this month, but they're also doing a small section of work on the fish market pier on the dividing wall, which is partially collapsed as we've assessed that as the next highest priority. And there is also work that is needing done to the failing concrete on the fish market pier, but there's no budget for that this year.
• Okay, no thanks, I think that the main concern past year is about the lighthouse pier itself. So it's going to get done as quick as possible, because the point that you're trying to make, thank you.
• Thank you. Councillor Morgan, is your hand historic? Thank you. Councillor Cops.
• Thank you. So we're here to approve and dress up armour, they're in fact the same page, and at the bottom digital fish market on your course, 150,000, you multiply that by 10 years and you look at the total cost, and then you say, well, that money could be better spent, upgrade the fish market under 50,000 per in a refrigerated temperature control and solution, all that. I think that's, I think that they're going to be able to open the ocean, what would actually cost. I appreciate the views that are introducing an electronic auction, water and boats, and it will not, it's a total infrastructure cost behind it, transportation, if you've got a boat coming in one day, nothing next two or three days, you need logistics to support that. I think this is the wrong way to go to try and create jobs and develop, make stuff as a hub for shipbuilding, we've seen, we've been asking for power points for years, not been delivered, and now we're seeing a new project. No restaurant chip or whatever goes down the fish market buys a boat, so how it takes up the road and fill it, the fish, it just doesn't happen, but if it did happen, you would go to Peterhead and you'd see all the restaurants and chip or something queued up way into buy fish. Electronic auctions, working remotely, most of the fish locally, the shellfish is also a dinette. This is my, I would be looking forward, this is not included as part of the prioritized list. There's far more important things that we should be investing in looking at going on the back of the proposal for the seaweed. That's going to require a significant amount of investment to support that, if anyone's read the report was required, it isn't just about the seaweed, obviously it's onshore infrastructure, it's required to support that. But if there's a list of questions for an awareness ready to turn up and make it off, I'd hope, waiting for a fish to be auctioned, if you think to see that. But your costs here are marginal to rent the total investment will be required to introduce a digital fish auction. Thank you. Sorry, we're putting forward, Janet, that doesn't go ahead. I've taken a note of that coin, Councillor Coxe, can't stop in with that. Yeah, thanks, Chair, for that one, I'm kind of disagreeing with Councillor Coxe on that one, to be honest, but the digital fish market and an awful lot of work has been done with officers and we can't come in on that one, too. I do agree that there's an awful lot of work that should be done, and it's quite rightly the priority list. We've got a lighthouse pier, the fish market pier, et cetera, on there. But there has been a lot of work involved, we had to have a master plan, and I do think we've had a few meetings about this, about the future. So I wouldn't be happy with taking it off the list. I quite rightly that the other priorities, they are on the list that you've done, a lighthouse pier, et cetera, but I would not want it taken off, to be honest, Chair, with that one. Go a bit about work, and I do note that there's a lot of virtual markets have been sort of proved to be successful in other parts of the country, so I wouldn't be able to take off the list. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I think I will do as we will take that off comment at the moment until we get the briefing note and I'll put the briefing note in as a recommendation. And therefore, once we get the briefing note, we know the exact status, and then we can decide from there where we want to go with this. I think this, if anything else, does really highlight the budget constraints that we are having to suffer. And Aberdeen, Chair, is having to suffer at the moment, and this is clearly bringing it home to Roost. Councillor Minnan. Yes, good morning, was good afternoon now. I'd like to echo the Sun's responses, Councillor Finn, right there, I don't think it should be taken off. And then, the other thing I've noticed, missing off the list, he's dredging, keeping clear the harbour north and the harbour itself, and also Banff Harbour doesn't seem to be anywhere listed for dredging or keeping the thing clear. Councillor interjecting. Would you like to come back on that, please? Certainly, Banff Harbour was done a couple of months ago, it was judged a couple of months ago. I'm not sure to be honest, I'm fairly new to this role, so apologies, I can't answer all of your questions, I don't know what the plan is for McDuff dredging. When I'd just come back, I've had a couple of harbour users from the Pamps, it sounds me that the harbour's already started to sit up again, I don't know whether that needs to be looked at on a regular basis, that's all, thank you. Thank you, Councillor Reynolds. Thank you, and thank you, Anne, and Stuart, but picking up, Chair, on the general point you made about the budgetary constraints, and this is more of an observation, really, but I very much look forward to the briefing paper, not the external funding aspect. I know that a couple of years ago, Murray Council, by way of comparison, was able to approach the HM Treasury and obtain significant sums of money with regard to bridge repairs, and it was match funding, and I just posed the question, and whether we're also approaching, because if it was good enough for Murray-wise and it good enough for Aberdeenshire, external funding includes looking at HM Treasury, because they made it possible for bridge repair works to be carried out in relation to a specific location that was prioritised there, so we should be doing the same. Thanks. Thank you. I don't think Anne can really answer that one. No, I'm sorry, I do know that they do, I mean, a lot of the storm damage to Stonehaven was paid, was funded, but sorry, no, I can't answer that. No, thank you. Councillor COX. Yeah, I do have an odd point, but just to come back, I get the feeling that something has happened and I will turn it off to the point I'm making is we have no evidence that it's a market, and an investment like this, if it's not good, the private sector should be doing it. This is an additional cost, and if you're to say it there in terms of priorities, but it's also time, looking at a situation where we're trying to deliver more, but we're less staff, and if staff are directed into doing these different projects, the core items are not being addressed, which brings me on to my other item, which is the robes, and we're seeing, very increasing with the flooding, what more rain that the roads are not coping with the amount of water, and it's creating quite a lot of danger of it, we're coming across something in the dark, you can't tell the pool of water or the other impact that we're faced with. Great lights, cars, I'm just making that as an observation, so it's quite difficult sometimes to see significant flooding, some out of quest here without going into any of the detail of where the money comes from, but there has to be some priority towards addressing where there are bad locations, where everything that rains, there's significant flooding on the road, and that will require a new drainage, or some work to the drainage, to ensure that the water goes off. A local member is valuing into our medieval, but familiar with the location beside the kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, window, place, just the other side of town, significantly once, but there are plenty of other places, and if you have a friend with Fraser, the matter of quest here is that the officers consider that as a priority to address these flooding and hot spots. I'll take him to it. He has his hand up. Right, as it goes through your chair, we do have areas where we're finding quite a lot of surface water in particular in roads. They do score high on a matrix in particular through the wintertime, particularly if for the risk of treason, what we are doing when we get a report of these is kind of seeing what can be done temporarily, and investigate them, which is really what helps the road condition is to make sure you have water off the road, so that it helps again with your condition, your less portals, the road lasts longer. We are basically conned with what you've got. We are looking at schemes where we can do a temporary measure that works, or we know it's going to come back for a measure that then goes on to our prioritise lists, and then we can then basically not knock them off when we have funded, but we are trying our best to try and mitigate a work among the road, however, sometimes with this winter dream, or having these days and kind of reacting to that, it's well that the, if I'm not really coming from the road, it's coming onto the road, which doesn't help as well, so I know there's actually discussions happening with their colleagues in the farming industry as well, so I think at colleagues with them and seeing what we can do to alleviate working with the road, but yeah, that is a score quite highly, hopefully we can get them to them, but again, it's to make sure we prioritise the ball, and we'll go forward. Thank you, Stuart, which kind of leads me on to some of the questions I had, so I was looking through the budget, and I note that Golly emptying, or girly cleaning, whatever it's called, for bumping behind, has a 20% roll-up budget than it has for other areas. Now, Golly's are one of the main sources of Lydin, and there was going to be a girly emptying prioritisation list. Can you give me the status and where that is, please? Yep, it is still currently ongoing. We're still developing that to then target the correct Golly's per year, what I'd be saying, so rather than get all Golly's inspected and cleared every year, it's targeting the ones that really have a risk for flooding, a risk that basically is always full of examples, so our team are currently doing that at the moment, which are the budgets, obviously with a report that depends on population, etc. That's a difference with the road line for the class vision of the road. That's the kind of reason why budgets are a bit lower in bumping, in particular, so it's a bit too rare, but there is budget for the road works. It's just currently at the moment what we're doing, like I was in bumping, is trying to get on main roads. You can look at that, so you're probably seeing our guys out. They're doing sort of management and doing their main road to then prevent hopefully deterioration of the road surface bull, so we have the back of that. We're out to inquiries that we're getting in the public income system, like ourselves, so we are reacting to that, and it is a low budget compared to what we have there. It's been a budget that's exclusively across the years, which I imagine that within our trading budget we've got, but it is reactive. It is reactive now where it's in there. Preventative and cyclic matrix maintenance will continue, but we'll be targeting that maintenance rather than actually going to each get late every year to then, because some of them are empty, some of them are half full. The ones we were targeting are deadly fuel, and that are sort of flooding, so that's the ones we're targeting. I know the team are doing that currently in all areas of danger. Thank you, Stuart. I fully appreciate the need to ensure our main roads are free of surface water, but we also have to think about the flooding issues and cause but they're not been settlements, so there are some really bad gullies and towns as well, so we'll hope that that survey is done sooner rather than later. The other thing I had was the Sanjun study. I'm not yours, obviously. You're about Stuart, but friend, can we see that study being published? I believe. Yeah, thank you, Councillor Mearier. I'm fortunate to say the budgets and things. The coastal side of it, we lost our coastal engineer, and we were told we weren't allowed to replace him, so we've just had to absorb that within the team. We don't have a coastal engineer, it's a bit of a concern for the whole urban danger. From my point of view, we don't have a designated coastal engineer, but we are working on it. We've also had discussions with our outdoor access colleagues and that as well. We've moved, we don't have it, we need to work in the designated to do coastal engineering at the moment, and we're making plans to try. There is coastal change adaptation plans that we are trying to push forward with, but at the moment, we are discussions and trying to move that forward, but it's the same challenge we had last year as well. We don't have anybody actively working on it, doing these coastal change adaptation planning, which we're always getting pressure, not just from Scottish government as well, but from our point of view, with budgets and things, we are reactive, we do repairs to sea walls, local sea walls and things. That's the kind of thing we are doing. It's these bigger studies and looking at bigger options that we're just not able to do at the moment. So it's on hold, basically. Yes. At present, yeah. Okay. The only other thing I have, and it's a purely practical comment and it's just Stuart on South Harbour Road, Fraser Bear Works Plan for the, there's a lot of construction going on at a site there, Stuart. So, probably in speaking to the contractor there, so we don't do works which they had received any heavy traffic, and then we don't get the value for money there. Yeah. I suppose the delegation around in Bob Puckin, we have to assess what the condition is and what we go forward. The site of our road has been, it's on the list there for I think, if we're prepping for suggestion in particular, but there is areas where I probably couldn't chase because of the weight of traffic there as well, because there's a lot of turn in traffic. However, there is plans to get that road not upgraded as such, but to maintain it as a state that's now, obviously, that's currently just working just beyond the, I was at the moment to have a new fruit bath going installed there at the moment, but going towards the time of week, we bet with the research and works there, I think it was two years ago now, we were doing something within that there. There is bits within that, between that surface and the roundabout, we need to address. However, obviously, just now with the kind of budget, we kind of have a scheme, the area that we'll go on the list to look at, we then probably look at, kind of make the patch and work so we can do there, again as a score, as per our matrix is a score, I probably, for the first to go and do the works there. Okay, thank you, thank you. I can't see no further indications, the committee on page 77 of the report, we have asked to approve the proposals in the attached appendices to make comment on the proposals as in the appendices, do you have any specific comments you want to make? Because I'm going to make a further recommendation for the briefing note. No, I can't see any. So, a further recommendation is that a detailed briefing note come back to Banffin behind Councillors on the status of repairs at McDough Harbour with detailed timelines and external funding opportunities and once we receive that, we can see where we go from there. Agreed? Sorry. I'm recommending that a briefing note come back to Banffin Button, Councillors, on McDough Harbour. Chair, thank you very much, I mean, what we have to do is discuss the economic report on the progress focusing on the work later that was produced. I think it's, I don't know, colleagues have received a copy, but it was circulated. Okay, well, we'll get the briefing note and then we can take that off table and discuss further. Okay, okay, thanks to the officers for coming along today and presenting the report. I do realise that our budget position is extremely challenging for you and I'm sure you're trying to do your best. Thank you. Please, thank you. Thank you, bye. Bye. Okay, the next eight and one today's agenda is 18 number eight, which is tackling poverty and inequalities on your progress report and we have an eight here today to present the report. Good morning and eight. Good morning. So thank you for allowing me to present this paper to you today. The paper covers all the work which is led by the tackling poverty and inequalities partnership and is broken into these areas. Child poverty, tackling poverty and inequalities and your report, which includes a budget allocation for 2023, 24, future investment and the information advice framework. The first area is child poverty. This is an area which is a priority, not only for Aberdeenshire Council, but for our community planning partners including NHS. As part of the duty placed on Aberdeenshire Council and NHS, we are required to jointly publish annually a local child poverty action report, which is attached in appendix two. This report has been co-produced with those with loved experience along with the wider partnership. The final draft of the local child poverty action report will be presented along with comments from this committee to the community's committee on the 6th of June for approval. The progress made in 2023, 24 against the child poverty action plan can be found as an appendix within the draft local child poverty action report. It's important that we use data to inform our work. One of the sets of data is the number of children living in poverty which is outlined in section 3.5 within the cover and report. The table covers the number of children living in poverty in 2022-23. Data highlights 2,642 children and young people are living in poverty within the Banff and Buckingham area, which is an increase of additional 157 children from the 2021 figures. As members know, the rise in cost of living is still impacting not only on our families and communities but local businesses too, so unfortunately the slight increase was expected. The table below that breaks down data into wards and identifies families and children under 16 who are living in absolute poverty. This is where household income is below the necessarily level to cover basic living costs such as food, fuel and housing. It also highlights those living in relative poverty. This is where total income of the household is less than 60% of the UK median income. Elected members will notice the majority of children and young people who live in poverty are within working households with 1731 children and young people within the Banff and Buckingham area living in households where at least one parent is in work. This figure is an increase from the 2021 figures of an additional 80 children and young people who are now living within households, working households. Sporting working parents or those seeking employment is a priority for our employability partnership and over the next 12 months the partnership will continue to focus on how to support working families as we know there are still challenges around transport, childcare and sustainable local employment. The next area is the tackling poverty and inequalities annual report towards a fair Aberdeen share which outlights the work of the tackling poverty and inequalities strategic group activities outcomes and impacts over the last 12 months and the budget allocation for that period. The full report is in attachment 3, appendix 3, in section 3.6 of the covered in report I've highlighted mental health and wellbeing workers within Aberdeen share council housing service as a project which has made a positive impact. The project is client focus ensuring people can access the support they need when they need it which can be housing employability, health, welfare rights, financial and wellbeing support. The case study highlights the positive impact the support has had on someone living in the Banff and Buckingham area. The project has supported a number of people across Banff and Buckingham. I've also highlighted in section 3.7 Fraser Brothers Men's Shed who are having a positive impact on the 25 members who attend this project not only do the reduce isolation but give those within the men's shed an opportunity to develop new skills and support around reducing energy costs. The investment for 24/25 is outlined in appendix 4 and members will notice that there is still over 700,000 and allocated therefore we would welcome any views from this committee on future priorities that can be supported going forward. The information advice framework is also reported as part of the annual report. The establishment of the Aberdeen share CAB 3 phone line and the ability to support people online has been an advantage over the last year. The CAB and money advice welfare rights team continue to meet people where it's suitable for them including home visits. In the Banff and Buckingham area the framework has supported 1,454 clients with a range of issues such as personal debt, housing issues, welfare rights and employability. It is increasingly difficult to maximise people's income as identifying savings as a challenge at the moment however we have been able through the framework to secure just over 900,000 as a financial gain for clients through the increase of benefit uptake, savings on household bills and debt management. The money advice welfare rights team through tackling poverty and inequalities are linked into communities or organisations such as Aberdeen Foy who have received training from our Quality Assurance Training Officer. They also link with house and service, education children's service through kinship carers and develop specialist pathways with NHS grand pain to deliver information and advice services to those who may not be able to access services through a traditional route. The team has access to a flexible fund which supports people to cover household bills and essential items, especially targeting those who have applied for benefits that will take up to five weeks to be put in place. We also have developed an energy challenge fund which targets those households of grid, households who have a child under one or there's someone in the household who has a disability or medical condition that means they cannot reduce their energy costs. This is referral only but it's been well used across the area. The existing contract that's in place with the CAB consortium is to deliver the community-based information and advice services will end in January 2025 and the Existant Fund and for the money advice welfare rights workers within tackling poverty and inequalities come to an end on 31 March 2025. Therefore, we are keen to get views not only on existing framework but what it should look like in the future. Our review including consultation with services, partners, CAB staff, volunteers, local people was carried out during 2023 and it was found that the combination of community-based services and specialist pathways was mostly positive. However, there is a number of learning points that we should take on board when looking at future provision. Appendix 6 highlights the challenges, recommendations, and possible options for the future of the information and advice services and we are asking this committee to give their views on so we can then present them at communities committee on the 6th of June. I'm aware that there is a number of papers for this committee to consider today and I will be happy to participate in an informal meeting at a future date with members to explore the local context. If members feel this would be appropriate, in the meantime, I am happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Yes, thank you, Anna. Thank you and your team for the excellent work you do. I'm sure you've done a lot to alleviate the hardship of the people in Banffin behind and I think we would all agree that we would welcome an informal session so that we can specifically drill down into local issues. I will take Councillor Logan first. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I'd like to echo the Chair's comments, Annette, about the superb work that you and colleagues are doing, particularly, for example, the almost 1 million pounds in cash that you'd be able to put into people's pockets in the area. That's absolutely fantastic and one shudder is to think where we would be without the child payment, for example. But I am not wishing to be critical at all, Annette, on the work that's being done, but we are being asked to comment at 1.22 on future priorities and when I look at the report and trying not to be too parochial in terms of our own area, but I look at the paragraph on page. I think it's 1-6-6 of our papers, what the data says, and I note that Fraser and District Peter had noise, Peter had soils in Croydon, represent almost 30% of children living in relative and absurd poverty across Aberdeenshire. So, I think what I'm asking is to what extent can we see future action targeted at those areas because that's where it will have the biggest impact in terms of numbers, fully accept their children living in relative and absurd poverty across Aberdeenshire, but because these areas have the highest levels, to what extent can they be targeted in future work? Annette, both and beyond what you're already doing. Thank you. Yes, Councillor, we are targeting Fraser and Peterhead through other funding streams like the Wellbeing Fund, which is supporting families, which education, children services lead on. We are also working to get external funding to place a welfare rights worker in Fraser but our academy, we've had very positive talks with the Head Teacher there. We've got a similar model in Melbourne Academy. We're just looking for external funding to be able to do that. We've also been able to secure from the Scottish Government 200,000 over the next couple of years for our cash-first approach. We are looking to, although it's targeting some of our rural communities, we want to also focus in on Fraser and Peterhead and make sure that those clients that have experience of financial crisis are actually involved and deliver involved in co-producing services for the future because what we don't want to do is to invest in areas that aren't going to work. We're looking for those with lived experience to actually help us design better referral pathways and better services that's going to meet the needs of those communities. We are looking to target Fraser and Peterhead, might not be highlighted in this report but there is other work going on behind the scenes, which I'm happy to give you a briefing on after this meeting. Thank you very much, Annette. That's the same little part here, and yes, we're welcome an informal briefing and perhaps see it featured next year's report. Thank you. Thank you, and Councillor Reynolds. Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, Annette. Annette, I'm going to be quite brief because I look forward to the opportunity of commenting upon the paper, which is comprehensive, as you say, at Communities Committee. But I really wanted to sort of just make the point that as my colleague, Councillor Logan, has said, this is a massive testament in terms of the amount of money that you are putting back into the pockets of people that really need it, and through that, it goes back into the local economy. So nearly a million pounds that otherwise would not be there, and that's a massive credit to you and the team, Annette. And in a way, I think that I wanted to make the point very briefly that in other meetings, we often see statistics that illustrate that the median wage level, the average median wage level across the Shire, is higher compared with other local authorities. But the problem with that is that it fails to illustrate, as your report does, the necessity and reality at a grassroots level of what some people are struggling with at the moment, not least in the cost of living crisis. So I'll leave it there. I know that you're doing so much, not just for children and child poverty and relative poverty, but pensioner poverty as well, but as Councillor Logan has said, so all power to you and I look forward to speaking to you again in June. Thanks, Annette. Thank you. Councillor Bail, sorry. Thank you, Councillor Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Annette, for the support and for all the work. I know that you and your team do so hard. I read these reports every time. I just feel nothing but total despair when I see the amount of children who are in absolute poverty, rising all the time, and the amount of people having to use food banks. I know you're doing everything you can, and I wish there was so much more that we could do to help you, Annette. But it just upsets me. I just feel just nothing but despair when this is happening in a country like our show. Sorry for this statement, but it really does get to me. Thank you, Councillor Bail. Yeah, it is. We're halfway through this program, Annette. How are you feeling about how it's achieving its aims? I think it's really difficult to, especially in the circumstances we find ourselves in at the moment, with the rise in coastal event, and it will continue for a little while. So the figures are going the wrong way, but what I'm doing at the moment is working with our colleagues, including NHS, what we do have been impacted. We weren't doing all this stuff. So I do understand that the figures going the wrong way is very concerning. However, we are still working with family, young people and individuals to make sure that the life that they have is as positive as possible. We are working with those with lived experience to change the way that we deliver our services and opportunities. We listen to communities right across Aberdeenshire and some of our more vocal voices actually come from Banff and Bucken, and they will tell us what will work and what doesn't work. So I think we are on track to continue to support families, individuals, and young people out of poverty. It's just going to take a bit longer than maybe what we had anticipated, because when this plan was put in place, it did not take into consideration the rising cost of living or the impact of breakfast and breakfast and all the other issues that we've had to overcome over the last few years. But I am pretty positive that we've got really resilient, good communities who will work with us to make sure that we are using our resources effectively and we're making the most impact on their life as a positive impact. Thank you, Annette, and yeah, thank you so much. I'm known as unknowns. A couple of things. I was an advocate for the child minder training skin care, but because it has such a positive impact, not only for the person who does the child minding, but for the folk who can go to them, they can start the lonely business, which is fabulous. On the back of that is a comment. The employability partners have had some really good results with 318 people gaining more positive employment. I wonder if it would be possible in any year's time if we could have some details on the impact that has had so that we know we're on the right track with us. I think it's absolutely commendable that they have managed this. Did that include that event in Tecca, Annette, can you tell me? The event in Tecca was more an information event market in the event to show them what was available to those who were in work and who wanted to seek employment. So those numbers there about how many parents have supported into employment does not include how many parents to engage with in Tecca, because that was just an engagement consultation, making people aware of what's happening. The child minder scheme, they did get 30 people signed up to that and they're looking to fund existing child minders to be mentors, because it can be quite scary setting up your own business. Therefore, we have in March got our tackling poverty and inequalities budget was passed by the Humanities Committee and within that budget, as you'll see with the budget that was outlined for 24/25, we've put in child care development fund and our colleagues in education and children services will also be putting in money around that training and development of the workforce and opportunities going forward, because it is a real issue at the moment. Yes, thank you. I mean, the best way to get any video to poverty is to give them bigger life chances, better life chances and better employment opportunities. So absolutely fabulous. The only other comment I have is around food banks and the need to get all the different suppliers of different food banks together, so that there is a regular supply, you know, a deal that each food bank is not working on the same days, another, if so to speak, so that we can get people to be able to access food, hopefully, on a daily basis, so maybe some work around them. We do have Fair Foods, Aberdeenshire Partnership and at the moment what they're doing is developing a food bank network so that they can support each other and through our cash first approach, we've got a project worker and she has been going around all the food banks to see how we can make sure that there's more coordination, not just about deliveries, but how can they support each other around maybe complex need clients, you know, referral pathways as well, so there is work going on which I can update you at the informal session. Excellent. I should have known you would have been on it and there's also the in Facebook specifically, but I'm sure there are other places, the clothing bank is well, which would also tie in well with this work, so committee, we could go back to page 17, note 140, and we are being asked to acknowledge and support the progress made in Tottenham's agenda, identify any specific work or consent, I think we will do that probably offline in the informal session and provide comments for the future of Aberdeen shire information and advice framework. Do we have any specific comments other than those around ensuring food banks are coordinated and focus should absolutely be given to employability support to enable people to move out of poverty? Any further comments? Yes, Chair. Yes, just to reflect that point, Amir, about next year's plan, including the matters that Annette referred to with regard to targeting specific areas like Frisberg, VRAD, Creuben, etc. Thank you. Did you get that, Jan? I'm sorry. Yes, Annette, I agreed that next year's plan would include the specific measures that you referred to, which are not necessarily reflected in detail in this report, so on. Thank you. And also, if we could have our report back on the outcomes for those parents who have been supported by the employability partners in a year's time so that we know that they have been deposited hopefully. Okay, Annette, thank you. We'll look forward to seeing you in your informal session and just thank you. Okay, thanks very much. Councillor Coxe, as I comment. I just briefly, Chair, to deal with this, it's about job creation, what you call to me, and I'm quite sure seeing the detail of that, which I didn't expect, but that's the solution to some of the things we're trying to address. We're trying to just keep that through more and many other symptoms that are dealing with the problem, which is getting people back into work and increasing the wage economy. Thank you. Thank you. I think that's probably for our economic development. Annette is absolutely on the top in poverty and inequalities. That's why the report back on the 318 people will be useful to see how it goes there. Okay, so James just informed me that informal meeting is the 26th of the communities committee, so if you have any further comments, I would direct them to Councillor Stuttling as the Chair of Community Committee before that informal date. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Annette. Thank you. Bye. Bye. Okay, the next item on the paper today is item number nine, which is the donations operational policy, and we have Carlin Watt, the strategic finance manager here today to introduce the paper. Good morning, Carlin. Thanks, for giving me the opportunity to come along and talk to this paper today. So this is the draft of the Council's donations policy for consideration and comment. So in accordance with the policy development and review framework, all area committees are being asked to consider and comment before the policy is finalized and presented to Business Services Committee for approval in June. This is something that was initially raised through an internal audit report where strategic finance were recommended to review and update a briefing, no on donations in order to ensure that there was a consistent and transparent treatment in place across the Council. We've included it within the paper, a copy of the accompanying donations operational procedures for members reference as well. So the policy itself has been developed with input from colleagues from Finance, Legal and Live Life, Aberdeenshire, and as part of that consultation, it was noted that there is already a policy in place within LLE for managing heritage material as part of the Council's collection within its museum services. So just for clarity, this draft policy in front of you today has been developed to complement that policy within the museum services and doesn't replace it, but instead this policy is more specific in dealing with cash donations. A donation itself can take various forms and can be received in a number of different methods, including online in-person, whether it's regular giving or gifting, or through a legacy. And the timing of donations in amounts can also vary, so it's important that there is that clear policy in place supported by operational procedures to ensure that all are accounted for on a consistent and compatible basis whilst also managing that risk from the Council's perspective. The policy sets out some general donation principles around acceptance of donations, along with some specific instances where the Council must or may need to refuse any donations offered. A registered of all donations will be maintained and regular reporting will be provided to members so that you can see the type and value of donations that are being received along with seeing where those funds have been used in a particular service. I'll stop there, but open up for any comments or questions anyone has. Thank you, Caroline. I have a couple. So in line with 4.4 and page 257, will there be a written agreement for the donor to ensure that there is no possibility of misunderstandings with regard to funding for the down the line? And if the donor asks that or wishes the money to be spent in a specific area, is this acceptable to the Council? And if so, how is this evidenced? We didn't envisage seen a formal written agreement because this was a donation. There'd be no strings attached to this because anyone donating to the Council that need to be made clear that it's not a formal agreement. Although if there's a donate, your second part of your question around the donor, which is the donation to be used on a particular activity or a particular service, that would be recorded within the donations route and then that reporting would come through members. So that would be reported to make sure that the money was spent in accordance with the donor's wishes, if that makes sense. So that's how we would envisage seeing that to make sure that the money is spent in the way that the donor expected it and the intentions when the money was provided to the Council. Okay, I'm not convinced that we don't shouldn't have some written agreement, but I can follow that up with legal colleagues to see how that would work in practice. Yeah, I think so. Just clarifies the situation and there will be no misunderstandings of its blatant signed agreement. Okay, Councillor COX. Yes, I think it's similar to that in the papers that we've been provided with and they additionally want to come through, donations could be and have been unbalanced. So we need a quite clear policy in regard to that because that relates to whether we dispose of them or whatever the terms and condition of that donation and it'd be disappointing to not accept a donation because it didn't fit the donations, the donations and wishes. So I'm thinking that I like to see people going to donate something to a particular purpose. There will need to be something to share along with the court. You're thinking there's not something sent out because then leads on to the other parts of this report and the several months that it reported in terms of asset purchase and asset disposal where there seems to be some cornflip which arises from exactly the same point. Historically, towns, the people and asset have been gifted and it's not all about auditing charge asset because they're the donation and this is why it needs that clarity because room fences say we have donating this and auditing charge comes from one of the response what we are looking after it but it's not an auditing charge that comes as asset whether it's cash or an artifact or whatever it was. But he was a little bit more to be done. He teased that out because we have not conflicting what this report is asking us to do but there's another step to that in terms of expansions and that supplementary report donations and museums and all sorts of things. So the principle here is what's my second one here is the ring fence condition of towns help any donations or receipt. Okay, Carlin, do you want to come back on that? Yeah, I think that's a good point that you're making there kind of sort of calls. We'll take that away and have a look just to make that a bit more clear because one of the points that's raised on another area committee was around that we've already got sort of charitable trusts and common good funds so we need to incorporate that to make sure if someone's deleted and it's to know it's going to be part of one of the the child to a trust for example the educational trust that that's clearly sign posted and there's a clear link between those two so I'll take that away and and make sure that's made much clear within this policy. Thank you. So I see no further indications. So committee is sorry there's our coaches. I just wonder if the time with the email came out in terms of the collection development policies and discussed at another point I was just tying in with this report. The collections was more for your information. It's not tied in with this report but if you want to read that and then if we have LLE coming up for an informal session then we can perhaps discuss then okay. Yeah thank you. Thank you for that quantity and yes it's very important we have this final discussion. Thank you. Okay committee we have been asked to consider and comment on the draft donations policy set out and note the accompanying donations operational procedure. So our comments are that they should have a written agreement with the donor on the terms of the donations and going forward both for ring fenced and for general donations. Yes. Okay committee do we agree the recommendations. Thank you. Thank you Carlin for coming along today and I hope you'll take our comments on board. Great. Thank you. That's very helpful. Thank you. Thank you. Okay committee the next item on the agenda today is community council administrative grants and single election and we have Angela up to present this paper. Yes thank you. Thank you Chair. So the report sets out the annual award of admin grant for the 12 community councils that exist across the Banff and Buchen area and this is for the financial year for 24-25. The mythology largely follows last year's award with a fixed grant which has increased to £600 per community council but an additional amount based per electorate put within each community council area. Members will note that this year's payments includes an additional £100 to cover insurance costs as each community council must now all individually pay for their own insurance premiums. So overall this provides £9,084 to community councils this year and appendix 1 and 2 sets out the amounts in detail per community council. Payment of these funds will be made in receipt of each community council providing the rotator accounts approved AGM minutes from 2023 as well proof that insurance is in place. The second part of the report provides an update on the single first single election process that would be applied to all community councils cross-abreding chair later this year. Appendix 3A sets out the process required and the dates including the requirement for each community council to hold an inaugural meeting following the elections on the 18th of September. This will allow appointment of office parish, revised constitutions and confirmation of meeting dates for the years ahead. The AGM will continue each year with elections taking place every three years. Information has been regularly shared with the community councils to introduce them to the changes and a frequently answered question sheet which is attached as appendix 3B to your paper has been created to ensure that all queries are addressed. The AGM will continue to support each community council where required and address further queries as they are received. We will also support them firmly through the election process in September, October. Happy to take any questions, Chair. Thank you, Andrea. Councillor Cox, is that hand historic? I'm a stone with a hand, isn't it? Thank you. There's been a lot of correspondence and a lot of discussion around this and I still have not bombed out this day but we're doing here and I'm quick and sad that it just turned some community councils off. I've achieved a community council as a legal body which has a bank account, sanctuaries, etc, etc. This resignation, which means that there are no office barriers, there's nothing. It doesn't exist because you've got no committee. I'm struggling to understand the time scale between that resignation and the community council continuing on because let's say something hypothetically happened in between a certain date where there was insurance claim because I want the community councils and kind of get involved in these things. I'm really struggling to understand the legality of everyone resigning and having a community council that doesn't really will not be functioning. The normal process would be you have your AGM, you nominate your new office barriers. At that point, the council is slightly different because we do all resign but the legality of it is that it's a council that doesn't stop. Community councils totally depend on those office barriers. Without the office barriers, it doesn't exist. I think there's something that quite jarring in my mind is that as a legal body basically sees him not existing but then you have your elections and then you have your AGM, you then make the appointment. It just seems quite an uproarious process. It should be all flowing together as well in my humble opinion. Andrew, I mean you would like to come back? Yeah, Chair, I suppose to raise your council of co-ops, it is a very short time scale. So, what we anticipate is that the period between the 18th and 20th of September, that there wouldn't be that functioning community council as you described it. However, I am going to bow to my committee officer's knowledge on this, having been far more involved in developing the process around it just to check in that I'm connecting what I say there and I'd offer further reassurance on that time skills. [inaudible] So, where's the meeting when the office barriers? I bring John in here. Chair, if I may, my mate wasn't working early. Can you hear me if I use the chair's mic? Thank you. Yes, Councillor COOK, what is going to be proposed is that the AGM, which will still be in May and June, we can't disentangle that without going through another full review of the scheme of establishment, which you will recall took three years from the end of 2018 to 2021 before we were able to implement it. So, what is proposed is that the AGM this in May and June, they either confirm the continuation if the office barriers are so reminded of the office barriers until the new committee council is appointed. That's a point again in the AGM in May and June for the period until the new inaugural meeting. Those office barriers will continue to responsibility right the way up until everyone stands down, as you say, on the 18th of September. And hopefully, after the count on the 20th of September, the committee council will exist even if the inaugural meetings haven't been held. And the inaugural meetings will be asked to confirm the office barriers because there may be a change of makeup of the committee council and they may wish to change or to confirm them. And also to confirm or change the dates, which is another thing that the committee council will be asked to do in May or June as normal. But again, it needs to be confirmed because post-election, it may be a different group of individuals on a different date might be their preference. The inaugural meetings will be held between the 23rd of September and the 11th of October in terms of the scheme. Now, it's likely to be actually the week after that in order if there are to be any computations, but we will be in consultation with the existing community council, chair and secretary about a date that will sleep then best. Does that help? Well, I'm certainly going to work with you. So you have your AGMs in May and June, you have your election, you have an inaugural meeting, which is not an AGM. So at which point, you're saying chairs, at which point did they appoint? So if they've all resigned, all the posts are office barriers, everyone's resigned, they need to be reappointed. But it's the same people who are currently approved or should be continued. You don't know that. That's right. We don't know who they are. Because there was an election and so the current office barriers are resigned, so you're not going to be stunned again. You then have a meeting which is not an AGM to elect office barriers. Well, that's the same on you. Because the inaugural meeting is not an AGM. It's just a meeting after the election. That's something missing there. Okay. I mean, I just can't explain with me. As I say, the agenda if I meet you through you, the inaugural meeting will ask for either the appointment or the confirmation of people in office barrier rules, and that won't reflect, as you say, whether people have stood again or not. We are expecting or hoping that the people and who are currently office barriers will be willing to extend their role until September. In order for that state place, it's worked very well in other parts of Scotland. We've gone to the single election phase. So just for clarity, in September, it is not another AGM. It's the first item of business, the confirmation of office barriers, or the selection of office barriers depending on whether they're going to be the same ones to carry on or whether that's new ones. It becomes part of just a normal community council meeting. Through you too, it's not a normal community council meeting. It is an inaugural meeting. The same way, and we'll have a very restricted agenda, the way that the AGM does at the moment. The first item of business will be the returning officer or her representatives advising of who's been elected again. And then you're right, the next one will be the confirmation of the appointment of chairs. Yes, and they will have that meeting. And then if they wish to have a further meeting at the end of that meeting to discuss local business, that could be done. We would expect that chairs happens at the moment with AGM. The AGM is a standalone meeting that often held on the same night as the general business meeting. We don't anticipate actually that there will be that much of a disjoint in the current operational of community councils over that time period. And if there was something of a specific emergency, the council could act on behalf of the community council. But we're really not expecting that type of event to occur. Thank you. Councillor COX, is that clear? Yeah, that's clear. I could see that, but traditionally, AGMs, when it's a public, where the people come around, well, it's a community council. Maybe it's a rolling in the normal meeting and appointment. There's something like jailing in my mind, because it's a gap. And it's certainly in the basis that those offices appear also from the 18th and 19th of September, there was a gap to that trust meeting by the 11th of October, which means it doesn't ask about status. I've said I've dominated this, and I'm not looking for problems. I'm not going to get that. You should have a single direction point of this, but it's a date. It's not a date. I can't tell if I may come back again. It literally will be from midnight on the 18th until after the count on the 20th. If the community council at the region in June has either let their current postholders extend until September, or appoint a new people, those people will immediately become postholders even before the inaugural meeting is held, or sorry. Until such time, as the inaugural meeting is held and confirms it, we can't call it a second AGM, or other word, that we're 10, that we're perhaps more comfortable with, because the AGM, in terms of the scheme, meets to stay in May and June, and would require, as I said earlier, a complete review of the scheme or establishment, so they got to happen. I understand that the scheme is due to be a review begun again in 2027, which will be when the third year time period is up, but whether it could at that point decided to move the AGM to the same type as the inaugural meeting, so you could have an inaugural meeting followed by an AGM, or a merged inaugural meeting an AGM, but we can't do that at the moment, because of statutory requirements of the scheme. I would echo Councillor COX's concerns there, another few at the moment. I have attended, who was in Ward 1 over the last few months, etc, and I pick up the fragile in terms of commitment and continuity, and a good number, if given the opportunity presented by resignation, just won't put the name forward again. That's my big concern, is that there'll be a sacrifice in this, who will lose those that, yeah, well, being involved in it, I'm just going to stick it out, it's maybe not as bad, or here's a queen break opportunity, I'm going to take it, then I'm not going to meet again until September, so I'm going to be well over the picture. That's my big concern, is the fragile ones, just may not re-materialise back in September. Thanks. Thank you, John. Thank you, Chair. It was just hopefully to provide a wee bit of reassurance of that. It is expected that with all the publicity, the publicity campaign that's going to run over summer, the single election date, the opportunities within communities for interested parties, that there may actually be a greater number of people, stable and willing to become interested in being a community councillor, and you're point about some of our community councils being in a very valuable position at the moment, I feel they agree with, and we're already providing as much support to them as we can. That will continue. We can just come back, again, not being overly negative, but these community councils have been working quite hard to try and get additional members of their communities through the new to participate, to come forward, and they've been doing it quite aggressively in some places, and it hasn't happened. It's just a concern, and we'll log it, but as I said, it's in conversation, and there will be those that won't come back. That's a concern. Thanks. Thank you, Councillor ADAMS. I do think they can all stand down at every AGM if they wanted, so, you know, it would apply at every AGM. Councillors, I've heard she went to come back. Is that it, Chair? We're not hearing Councillor COX, are we? Sorry, my concern sounds all the void, because I've come across a situation before between the resignation to the new office bearers, and the student said that the possibility of those office bearers saying, I've had enough, and we know one or two community councils, even at this point, are, there's no, no, coming through, they're struggling to have their meetings while they're alone, not alone, make any decisions. Anyway, it will be, see what happens, but the void is something that needs, between resignation and reappointment, because it's sent out here about a potential gap, whether it's 24 hours or 24 days, it still has the same consequences of something, they're in the office bearers and posts because of all resigned. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor COX. But on the other side of the coin, it couldn't have a positive impact if the publicity campaign is, you know, is successful, then we might get more community councillors to engage, so they might be strengthened, and hopefully will be by this process. Okay, Committee, we are asked to agree on page 255-265, sorry, agree and approve the allocation of the Community Council Administration grants for Banffin-Bohan area for 24-25, I note the proposals for the single election to be held in September 2024. Do we agree the recommendations, Committee? That's what they add, the reservations in terms of the vote between resignation and the pass meeting. That isn't a thing for comment, but it could be noted in the minutes. Yes, thank you. Finally speaking. Okay, I would note in front that the meeting has concluded, and that the recording and live streaming will be stopped. Thank you for your interest today, John. Could you please stop the recording and live streaming? Yes, thank you, Chair.