minute of salag meeting...

1

Minute of SALAG Meeting Tuesday 27 March 2018 at 14.30

Westhill Library, Westhill Present Gina Ford Scottish Enterprise (Public) (Chair) Kyrsten Black Scotland's Rural College (Public) Dawn Brown Garioch Partnership (Private) Belinda Miller Aberdeenshire Council (Public) Jo Robinson Visit Scotland (Public) Dawn Tuckwood NHS Grampian (Public) Jill Webster Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce (Private) Catriona Dougherty Garioch Community Councils (Private) David Nelson Kincardineshire Development Partnership (Private) Elaine Sinclair Aberdeenshire Voluntary Action (Private) Officers in Attendance Martin Brebner Team Manager – European Policy & Programmes Lynsey Wardlaw Project Development Officer Pam Cruickshank European Programmes Co-ordinator Katherine Griffin Administrator Apologies Gerald Banks National Farmers’ Union Scotland (Private) Gavin Clark Scottish Natural Heritage (Public) Ruth Fisher Visit Aberdeenshire (Private) Malcolm Nicol Scottish Land and Estates (Private) Andy Willox Federation of Small Businesses (Private) 1. Welcome and Apologies 1.1. The Chair welcomed those present and apologies were noted as above. The

Chair welcomed Jill Webster who has taken the place of chamber representative for the group.

1.2. It was confirmed that the meeting was quorate (5 public, 5 non-public representatives).

2. Declarations of Interest

2.1. No declarations of interest were noted.

3. Staffing Update

2

3.1. Martin Brebner gave an update on recruitment within the European Policy and Programmes Team. Alasdair Cunningham and June Jaffrey left at the end of January. Pam Cruickshank has been appointed as European Programmes Co-ordinator replacing Alasdair Cunningham and is due to start on 16 April. Jo Edwards has been appointed as European Programmes Claims Officer replacing June Jaffrey and is due to start on 23 April. Lynsey Wardlaw has been appointed as Project Development Officer for LAG led commission projects for South Aberdeenshire.

4. Minute of LAG Meeting 24/10/17 – Paper 01

4.1 The minute of the last LAG meeting was approved having been proposed by

Dawn Brown and seconded by Belinda Miller.

4.2 David Nelson asked that the minute be amended at 7.5.2 as his name is written as David Nicol instead of Nelson.

Action:

The LAG minute is to be amended to state ‘David Nelson’ rather than ‘David Nicol’.

5. Project Assessment Committee (PAC) Minute 09/03/18 – Paper 02 5.1 The minute of the last PAC meeting was approved having been proposed by

Dawn Brown and seconded by Elaine Sinclair. 6. Local Development Strategy Implementation Report – Paper 03 6.1 Martin Brebner presented this report which gave an update on progress in the

implementation of the South Aberdeenshire Local Development Strategy. 6.2 Funding targets are generally being exceeded with the exception of the number

of projects supported, the number of new jobs created and the new products/services created. However there are some feasibility studies with ambitious targets in terms of the number of individuals benefitting so these figures will need to be clarified.

6.3 The overall funding committed is 29% which also takes into account fisheries funding. It was noted that some priorities have no funding committed and others do not have enough funding available.

6.4 It was highlighted that no applications have been received from the Kincardine

and Mearns area. Two approvals were made for projects in Stonehaven but these have been subject to asset transfers. Per government guidelines as sixty days have past these applications have been returned to the applicant and will be reconsidered by the LAG once the asset transfers have been received. The majority of projects have been in rural areas.

3

6.5 One project has been awarded funding under the ‘Connecting People and Places’ priority for ‘Torphins Area Paths Feasibility Study’. The LAG were asked to increase funding by nineteen pence due to an administrative error in the grant amount requested. No other projects have come forward under this priority therefore a recommendation was put to the LAG to commission a project to use the remaining funding of £40,000.

6.6 The LAG discussed the ‘Clubhouse Extension’ project which is in difficulty as the applicant has deviated from the agreed tender. The applicant now has to evidence adequate procurement of their costs. Martin Brebner advised he asked the Scottish Government if the applicant’s costs could be capped at the amount verified in the original tender provided the applicant has incurred that amount of expenditure but was advised this couldn’t be done. Instead costs need to be looked at on an item by item basis. Martin is to get in touch with the applicant to find out how this is progressing.

6.7 Gina Ford highlighted there is a risk that the applicant will be unable to provide evidence to make a valid claim and will be unable to reclaim any money spent. Belinda Miller explained if there were any issues further down the line it would be Aberdeenshire Council that would be liable for the cost not LEADER. Dawn Tuckwood questioned if the applicant is fully aware of the issue. Martin explained he is in correspondence with the applicant and has highlighted the relevant part of the guidance. Martin advised the issue first came to light when the claim was submitted in August and was subsequently returned. A change request was then submitted in December which was also returned.

6.8 There is a risk that this project will be decommitted. Gina Ford advised that Martin is doing all he can to assist. Dawn Tuckwood asked if the applicant was aware they may not receive any funding. Martin advised that a meeting was held with the applicant to discuss the change request. A follow up letter was sent out to advise what would be required in order for their application to be approved. The applicant explained the difficulties they were having and queried if it could be done a different way. Martin explained this couldn’t be done and advised the applicant not to incur any additional expenditure until this is sorted out. Dawn Tuckwood asked if the area manager had been advised. Gina Ford queried if the LAG would be allowed to divulge this information and suggested this is something the applicant could mention. Gina suggested that the LAG help wherever possible but ultimately it is the applicant’s responsibility and the LAG can only advise them so far. Martin confirmed no money has been paid.

6.9 Martin Brebner advised that funding has been awarded in principle to the ‘Furniture Lodge Social Enterprise’ project pending confirmation that the asset transfer has been completed. Once complete the applicant will need to revise their application which will be reassessed and resubmitted to the LAG. Martin confirmed that funding is still available for this project but the LAG will need to revisit this at a later date otherwise there is a risk that the money won’t be spent at all. There are other applicants looking for funding from this priority although they have been advised funding is fully committed at the moment.

4

6.10 Martin Brebner advised it is unlikely the ‘Farm Diversification’ priority will be

fully committed. NALAG are looking to hold a promotional event in the next few weeks which SALAG could combine with. David Nelson commented it is disappointing there has been little interest given this is a diverse agricultural area but felt more can be done in terms of marketing. Gina Ford noted within Angus and Perth & Kinross applicants have looked at providing accommodation as a diversification enterprise. Martin advised some ideas have come forward including a training centre on a farm which would have a wider community benefit as this could be rented out to local community groups. Martin advised that he hopes to go through the expression of interest list once Pam Cruickshank is in post and contact applicants to ask if they are planning to take things forward. Belinda Miller asked if milk vending machines would be classed as farm diversification. Krysten Black confirmed it would.

6.11 David Nelson queried if alternative energy schemes would be supported under the ‘Farm Diversification’ priority. Martin Brebner advised this would probably fall under the Scottish Rural Development Programme. Krysten Black suggested mentioning ‘Farm Diversification’ within the newsletter her organisation issues to farm agricultural clients. The LAG agreed this as an action.

6.12 Gina Ford asked if there is a minimum percentage of funding that applicants

need to put in themselves. Martin Brebner advised that state aid rules limit support for ‘Farm Diversification’ to €70,000 (approximately £60,000) total grant funding which restricts how funding is allocated. Therefore more projects are needed for this priority than for others.

6.13 Martin Brebner advised that the Uryside Park project hasn’t progressed much in the last twelve months. Also the scope of the project has deviated from the original proposal. The applicant has been asked to update the scope of works which the LAG will decide whether to approve or not. Part of the project falls under the ‘Leisure and Recreation for Wellbeing’ priority which already has bids for the full amount with others in the pipeline. Lynsey Wardlaw outlined the details of the project to the LAG. A public consultation was carried out with the main priority for the local community being the creation of a playpark. A vast amount of planting is also proposed to try and stabilise the area as it is prone to flooding.

6.14 Dawn Tuckwood asked who would be responsible for maintenance. Lynsey advised that Aberdeenshire Council own the land and would be applying for LEADER funding. Once the work is completed a community asset transfer would take place with Ury Riverside Trust being responsible for ongoing maintenance thereafter. However Aberdeenshire Council would be liable for the duration of the LEADER programme.

6.15 In the original application funding was requested for a project development officer however since Aberdeenshire Council is applying for funding it was felt

5

there is enough project management experience within the council to deliver the project. Gina Ford commented that a project development officer was suggested as we have moved away from the idea of this being a specialist wetland reserve.

6.16 Elaine Sinclair highlighted that groundworks required for stabilising land on a

flood plain is an ongoing battle. Dawn Tuckwood asked if staff from the council have been involved with the project. Dawn Brown confirmed they have. Dawn also noted the football pitches are more grassy areas for a kick-about than formal football pitches. Gina Ford felt that we shouldn’t stop the area being a flood plain otherwise we are displacing the problem. Dawn Brown advised that the playpark wasn’t in the original proposal but was added after consultation with the local community. Gina felt we should stick with the original proposal of enhancing the flood plain and making it accessible with the addition of an informal recreation space. Dawn Tuckwood asked if there has been any developer contributions to the project. Dawn Brown advised that this funding had been spent on paths.

6.17 Martin Brebner commented that the challenge with this project is the number of different people involved including trustees, council officers and different council services. Martin suggested it would be beneficial to have a LAG sub-group working along with a SCIO and Aberdeenshire Council to take the project forward. It was suggested this be put round the LAG to gauge interest in setting up a sub-group. Once set up a meeting can be arranged to discuss the project further.

6.18 Lynsey Wardlaw advised that the applicant thought they would receive funding in August but were advised funding would only be given once a decision is made. This now has an impact on the planting schedule. Gina Ford asked if funding could be given in advance for a commission project. Martin Brebner advised LAG approval has to be given first. There is a possibility of doing this through written procedure but to make best use of resources written procedures have been minimised. It is also helpful to have a final end date.

6.19 Jill Webster asked if the LAG sub-group would make the decision regarding moving part of the project to the ‘Leisure and Recreation for Wellbeing’ priority. Martin advised that the LAG would make the decision but it would be best for the LAG sub-group to discuss this first then recommend to the LAG whether or not to go ahead.

6.20 Martin Brebner noted there is pressure on the ‘Leisure and Recreation for

Wellbeing’ priority as there are enough bids coming through this round to use the entire budget plus there are men’s sheds projects in the pipeline. There is an opportunity to move funding to this priority which the LAG would need to consider.

6.21 Martin Brebner advised that after a technical check the Scottish Government

requested changes be made to the Mountain Bike Aberdeenshire project

6

application. A contract could not be issued until Scottish Enterprise confirmed match funding, this has now been confirmed. Due to the delay the applicant revised their costs. Martin advised the applicant to keep the original costs as there is no need to make changes at this time which means the application does not have to be reassessed. As the costs have already been approved by the LAG, the changes from the Scottish Government just need to be built in then the application can progress. As it has been more than sixty days from the LAG approval date the LAG would require to confirm they are happy with the change. The only change has been to the match funding whereby Scottish Enterprise is providing the full amount of match funding for eligible costs and Aberdeenshire Council’s contribution of £10,000 has been removed and will be used to cover ineligible costs. Dawn Tuckwood asked if this information would be sent back out or if it is still on the system. Martin advised it is still on the system as it is the same grant amount and overall match funding contribution. The start and end dates have been changed due to the delay so are approximately six months later.

6.22 The LAG unanimously agreed to: 6.22.1 Not to vire funds between priorities; 6.22.2 Not to approve the updated project specification for the Uryside project but set

up a sub-group to discuss; 6.22.3 To decommit funds provisionally allocated to the Tollbooth project; 6.22.4 To approve a derogation to the requirement for 3 quotes for the timber kicker

for the ‘Indoor Riding and Driving Arena’ (02/P00005) project; 6.22.5 To approve an increase in the approved grant for the ‘Torphins Area Paths

Feasibility Study’ (02/P00038) from £9,038 to £9,038.19.

7. Projects – Paper 04 7.1 02/P00039 – Strachan Hall Redevelopment

7.1.1 Belinda Miller commented that the application includes elements that perhaps

aren’t required and that a substantial sum is being requested. It was questioned how the applicant would find additional funding if the full amount wasn’t given and if the community had been fully consulted. Elaine Sinclair noted this is a challenging application with a lack of demonstration of LEADER consultation and details of impact. It wasn’t clear how they would attract new users to the facility. It was also noted that the halls at Finzean and Banchory are nearby.

7.1.2 Jill Webster noted there aren’t many facilities left in Strachan with the school,

church and shop now closed so the hall is the main hub for the community. There is also a new housing development and another one in the pipeline.

7

7.1.3 Gina Ford commented that by making the project more than a renovation it has gone into a different area which has made it expensive to turn into a comfortable venue. Further clarification was sought regarding how much money the applicant is putting into the project which has now been received. Gina noted it is a lot of money from a tight budget and it is irrelevant the number of people that will benefit as the application has come from a small community. It is not a straightforward application.

7.1.4 David Nelson commented that the amount of money being asked for is quite

high and perhaps it would be better value demolishing the current building and rebuilding. Martin Brebner responded that this had been suggested to the applicant at an early stage of the application and the applicant had responded through their application citing environmental sustainability. David queried if confirmation had been received that the applicant is to receive funding from the Midhill Community Benefit Fund as the amount seems quite high. Martin noted match funding has not been confirmed as ringfenced. Three allocations have been given, the first two small amounts have been transferred into their bank account. There is a note of a minute confirming they would be willing to award funding to the group but a more formal letter would be required to confirm. However some the funding was going to be used towards some ineligible costs so there is a bit of disentangling to do in terms of the match funding.

7.1.5 Belinda Miller commented that even if we did award all the funding they have

only reduced their costs by £6,000. Martin Brebner noted the applicant has provided a list of their priorities through the LARC system. The priorities in order of importance are to replace the flat roofs with pitched metal roofs, redevelop the toilets, insulate the walls and ceilings, replace windows, renew the toilets/relocate the disabled toilet, repair leaking windows and doors, insulate external walls, install new lights and heating, create a storeroom which would require relocating the kitchen, create a new kitchen with insulated walls and ceiling using as much of the existing kitchen as possible and insulate the small hall walls and ceiling, fit new lights and heating. Martin advised the applicant received funding for the kitchen during the last LEADER round. This application was originally submitted as an expression of interest for £50,000 for a roof repair but after consultation with the co-ordinator it was advised that to be successful with LEADER more would have to be done therefore the application grew significantly. The application has been scaled down since the submission at the last round with a playpark being removed and widening of the road being removed as it was ineligible due to being on an adopted road owned by the council.

7.1.6 Dawn Tuckwood noted that the application has an environmental feel with

mention of an air source heat pump and energy efficient lighting. Elaine Sinclair questioned whether this was being showcased enough.

7.1.7 Gina Ford noted that it hard to see how the cost represents good value for

money. Apart from retaining the kitchen fittings from the previous LEADER

8

fund it’s hard to see how it wouldn’t be cheaper to build a new, modern insulated structure with the interior laid out the way they want it.

7.1.8 Jill Webster asked whether there is any scope to go back and revise the

discussions about what is possible. Jill emphasised the importance of the hall as a community hub. Catriona Dougherty agreed its importance as a community hub but questioned whether this is the best way of providing it. Martin Brebner stated there are three options for the LAG, approve as presented, defer the application and ask the applicant to rethink what is required or reject the application. Belinda Miller highlighted there isn’t much money left in this fund so if they were to come back to us at a later date there might not be any funding left. Gina Ford expressed concern that it was due to discussions with the LAG that the applicant requested more works on their application that to then say this isn’t what we meant and reject the application would be unfair. However if the LAG can’t approve this application the applicant risks receiving no funding.

7.1.9 Catriona Dougherty asked if the application was rejected would citing value for

money or the number of people that would benefit from the spend isn’t high enough be a valid reason for rejecting this application. Belinda Miller felt this wouldn’t be a valid reason as it is their project and it would be hard for the LAG to say this is the reason we’re refusing it. Martin Brebner advised there are a number of points that need to be assessed and scored by the project assessment committee to determine whether this is the best use of LEADER funding.

7.1.10 Gina Ford noted that people who have used the hall in the past might not make

it a regular booking if they have found the hall to be cold the one and only time they have used it therefore there is probably potential to extend the reach once the building is made more comfortable.

7.1.11 Elaine Sinclair questioned if the applicant is asking for a lot of money or if this is the normal cost for refurbishment.

7.1.12 Dawn Tuckwood expressed concern that the LAG encouraged the applicant to

put more work into their application but their application might be rejected. Martin Brebner highlighted that the LAG is likely to receive complaints as applicants have felt they have been advised to go down a certain route but there aren’t enough funds available. Martin advised it’s not a case that applicants have been misled rather they were advised by co-ordinators at a time when there weren’t many applications coming in and it has taken a long time for their applications to come forward by which time we’re in a different position than when the advice was originally given.

7.1.13 Gina Ford asked if we could ask the applicant to look at reducing costs by having a more conventional, less imaginative source of heating which may be cheaper.

9

7.1.14 Elaine Sinclair asked if there was scope to go back to the applicant and ask how much funding would be required for the roof alone. Martin Brebner advised there has been a change to Scottish Government guidance which now allows funding to be used for repairs and maintenance. However the application would still need to meet the criteria of horizontal themes with innovation which may be hard to justify if doing a like for like replacement.

7.1.15 Dawn Tuckwood asked if the LAG could move funding between priorities. Martin Brebner advised that the LAG can do this and it has been looked into but the difficulty is trying to find where to take the money from. It would mean deleting priorities which is a major change from the strategy as the funding is to deliver the whole strategy. Belinda Miller commented that the LAG need to decide on the current applications and then advise future applicants that there is no more funding as there is not enough money to vire from other priorities.

7.1.16 Gina Ford noted applicants may be unhappy their expectations have been

raised unreasonably. It is also incumbent that applicants submit their

applications timeously so they can be considered. Martin Brebner commented

that applicants need to ensure applications are to a reasonable standard as

there is a concern applicants will say they have submitted an application but

the LAG wouldn’t let it through. Martin commented that the LAG could defer

the application to the next round however Gina noted this would disfavour a

compliant project which wouldn’t be fair.

7.1.16 Dawn Tuckwood asked if we could go back to the applicant and explain the

difficulties however Gina noted the difficulties are related to our budget not the

application therefore this wouldn’t be appropriate. Belinda Miller suggested we

go back to the applicant and suggest a figure for the roof replacement only then

the applicant could fundraise for the rest of the money. Krysten Black asked if

we could agree to replace the roof at whatever amount we can afford. Martin

Brebner advised that due to the way the tendering was done, a new tender

document would need to be submitted for the roof alone. Dawn Tuckwood

commented she would feel more comfortable if the situation was explained to

the applicant and they were asked to scale back the project to something

realistic the LAG could support versus nothing at all. Krysten Black noted she

has an issue with the applicant asking for funding for a kitchen that was given

by LEADER at an earlier round. Gina Ford noted the applicant had requested

relocating the kitchen as you have to go through it to get to other parts of the

building however the kitchen is perfectly useable as it is. Krysten felt this

doesn’t show great strategic planning.

7.1.17 David Nelson noted if the LAG is to be guided by the PAC then he doesn’t recall

any projects we have supported that have scored lower than 10 as it doesn’t

meet criteria. Belinda Miller advised this score is given before the PAC have

10

discussed the application and gone back to the applicant for clarification of any

points raised.

7.1.18 Elaine Sinclair asked if the LAG could support the replacement of the roof on

the basis that clarification is sought on how to increase the usage of the facility.

Belinda Miller asked Martin Brebner if this was possible and Martin advised that

we need to defer their application and ask the applicant to refine the scope of

the project. There is currently no report from a quantity surveyor regarding the

roof cost so this would need to be obtained. Dawn Tuckwood questioned what

comeback the applicant would have if they wished to complain if we said no

outright after the LAG advised them to amend their application to include more

than just a roof. Gina Ford suggested the applicant give us the cost for their

priority project which we can support rather than a wish list. Jo Robinson

agreed this would be better than saying no.

7.1.19 Martin Brebner advised that the Scottish Government reissued guidance last

year to delete repairs and maintenance from the list of ineligible costs therefore

when the applicant applied they wouldn’t have been permitted to only replace

the roof as it would’ve been ineligible. Gina Ford queried how this can be

progressed if the application has to be resubmitted as the applicant will be

further behind in the queue. Krysten Black queried if this was part of the same

bid but Martin advised the way the application has been structured it’s as one

big contract. Belinda Miller asked if it was possible to defer this as the same

application with reduced costs. Krysten asked if it could be deferred but the

same application reference number kept so it doesn’t go to the back of the

queue. Martin advised the same application reference number could be kept.

Martin suggested the LAG agree to defer the decision and go back to the

applicant and ask them to revise their application bearing in mind the available

budget and the change in the Scottish Government guidelines. Belinda asked

if the LAG can suggest to the applicant only replacing the roof. David Nelson

asked if the LAG could match fund but Martin advised it is up to the applicant

to source other funds. Dawn Tuckwood asked if funding could be given from

another priority or more than one priority. Martin advised it is better to move

funds from one priority to the other.

7.1.20 Gina Ford asked the LAG to suggest a figure we would offer for funding. David

Nelson suggested match funding what they have received from other

organisations. Martin Brebner advised he would need to check the ring-fenced

funding from Midmill Community Fund as it’s not clear what it is for. The funding

letter from the Robertson Trust will also need to be checked to see how specific

it is, whether it is just a general allocation towards costs or if they expect the

same deliverables as they have on their LEADER application. The LAG agreed

not to go above 50% intervention rate. Belinda Miller asked if the LAG can

11

ringfence 50% of the funds until the applicant revises their application. Martin

advised we can take this into consideration when looking at future applications.

7.1.21 The LAG voted as follows:

Member Approve Reject Defer Abstain DOI

Public

Gina Ford (Scottish Enterprise)

Y

Kyrsten Black (Scotland's Rural College)

Y

Belinda Miller (Aberdeenshire Council)

Y

Jo Robinson (Visit Scotland)

Y

Dawn Tuckwood (NHS Grampian)

Y

Public Total 0 0 5 0 0

Non-Public

Dawn Brown (Garioch Partnership)

Y

Jill Webster (Aberdeen & Grampian Chamber of Commerce)

Y

Catriona Dougherty (Garioch Community Councils)

Y

David Nelson (Kincardineshire Development Partnership)

Y

Elaine Sinclair (Aberdeenshire Voluntary Action)

Y

12

Non-Public Total

0

Overall Total 0 0 5 0 0

7.1.22 The LAG agreed to defer 02/P00039 – Strachan Hall Redevelopment, with

the applicant to reduce the scope of their application and resubmit.

7.2 02/P00042 – Inchmarlo Community Workshop 7.2.1 Gina Ford commented there is a lack of evidence regarding the use of the

workshop. Elaine Sinclair commented she was impressed with the amount of work the applicant has done off their own back. Belinda Miller commented that for the amount of funding being requested they adequately answered the PAC’s questions as to why that number was set. The LAG agreed this application is creative and offers something different.



Public


Y


Y


Y


Y


Y


Non-Public


Y


Y

13


Y


Y


Y

Non-Public Total

5 0 0 0 0


7.2.3 The LAG agreed to offer a grant of £20,434.75 to 02/P00042 – Inchmarlo

Community Workshop 7. 02/P00044 – Aboyne Canoe Club Storage Facility 7.3.1 Gina Ford commented that this is an expensive project. Belinda Miller advised

it is being built on a flood plain which is adding to the cost. Gina Ford advised that some of the expense is out-with the applicant’s control due to utilities having to be brought to the site and having to comply with site conditions. The LAG agreed that funding should only be given for the storage facility as the applicant should be able to get funding for the equipment elsewhere.



Public


Y


Y


Y


Y

14


Y


Non-Public


Y


Y


Y


Y


Y

Non-Public Total

0 0 0 0 0


7.3.3 The LAG agreed to defer 02/P00044 – Aboyne Canoe Club Storage

Facility, with the applicant to reduce the scope of their application and resubmit.

8. Incomplete Applications – Paper 05 8.1 Dawn Tuckwood raised the issue surrounding the project application

02/P00034 – Woodend Barn. Martin Brebner advised their application has been assessed seven times without having been able to submit a competent application or being able to engage with staff.

8.2 Elaine Sinclair commented on the difficulties faced by the LEADER team with regards to the complexity of the process and the changing of goalposts which has affected projects. Aboyne and Mid-Deeside Community Shed have raised concerns regarding the quality and capacity of the advice and guidance. The

15

applicant feels they have done what has been asked of them to the letter. Belinda Miller commented that the LAG have requested information from the applicant which hasn’t been forthcoming and they don’t seem to accept the process. The applicant is under the impression that a decision will be made today regarding their application but they have been advised that the LAG can’t make a decision until all the technical checks have been done.

8.3 Elaine Sinclair advised that the applicant is concerned their application will no

longer be considered. Martin Brebner advised that the LAG policy is any application submitted twice is referred to the LAG to decide if the applicant will be given another opportunity to submit their application. Martin advised that the applicant has asked that their chronology and letters be made available to the LAG which has been actioned. Martin has also added the formal correspondence from Alasdair Cunningham for the LAG’s information.

8.4 Martin Brebner advised that the project is potentially resolvable. The main

technical issue with this application is the tender was completed and signed off by an architect then one of their match funders fell through so they attempted to reduce the scope of works without going back to the architect who would re-evaluate the tender. Instead the applicant approached the successful bidder and asked them to re-bid. The applicant did not approach the unsuccessful bidders or obtain professional advice on how to apportion the non-successful bids. An excel spreadsheet has been provided by the applicant but this does not clearly show how they have managed to reduce two of the bids. The LAG require independently certified documentation from the architect as provided in the original tender.

8.5 Belinda Miller suggested the applicant is told to resubmit their application and

then a LAG meeting should take place for those projects coming from the same budget. Any potential applicants requesting funding from the same budget should be told not to submit any applications until the LAG meeting is held. It was suggested the decision as to vire money from other priorities is discussed at this meeting. If there is no funding left then the LAG shouldn’t accept any more applications.

8.6 Dawn Tuckwood asked how many applications are still to come through. Martin Brebner advised that eleven are still in the pipeline with three of those being presented today.

8.7 Martin Brebner highlighted there is confusion on the wording of the LAG policy

with projects that fail the technical assessment being submitted to the LAG after the first round and the second round. Gina Ford clarified that it should be given for information at the first round and submitted at the second round.

9. Procurement Policy – Paper 06

10. AOCB

16

No other competent business.

11.1 Date of Next Meeting 11.1.1 The date of the next meeting was confirmed as the 10 July 2018. LAG

Members asked for invitations to agreed LAG meetings to be circulated to them as soon as possible.

Action:

Electronic meeting invitations for 2018 LAG meetings to be circulated to LAG members.

Minute Taker Katherine Griffin, Administrator 27/03/18

minute of salag meeting...

Documents