THIS REPORT RELATES COUNCIL TO ITEM 6 ON THE AGENDA

EXECUTIVE CORPORATE SERVICES

13 NOVEMBER 2007 NOT EXEMPT

AREA COMMUNITY PLANNING – BOUNDARY & RELATED ISSUES

1 SUMMARY

1.1 On 16 June 2007 a Community Conference was held bringing together Stirling’s new Councillors and the district’s community representatives. There were two main issues discussed. The first was whether the boundaries of Area Community Planning Forums should be brought in line with the new Council Wards. The second was how best communities and the new Councillors could work together. It was agreed at the Conference that communities should be given additional time in the Summer to consider these issues and feedback to the Council. This report sets out the main output from the Conference and consultation feedback. This feedback seems supportive of the boundaries remaining as they are but has also raised specific concerns relating to the viability of Area 1 – , and Logie.

1.2 Retaining the current boundaries would deviate from a previous decision by the Council on 14 June 2006 to bring Area Community Planning Boundaries into line with the new Council wards.

1.3 In the light of the Conference and consultative feedback the Executive is requested to: • determine the boundaries of the district’s Area Community Planning Forums; • refer other issues relating to resourcing etc. of the Forums to the review of the Community Governance Strategy, which is due to be undertaken by March 2008, and • consider the issues raised regarding Councillor/community interaction in more depth at a members Seminar which will form part of the review of the Community Governance Strategy.

2 RECOMMENDATION(S)

The Executive is invited to consider the recommendations set out below and make appropriate recommendations to Council on each of these: -

2.1 to note the output from the Community Conference held on 16 June 2007 and the subsequent consultative feedback; 2.2 to determine whether to (a) leave Area Community Planning boundaries as they currently stand or (b) bring Area Community Planning Forum boundaries in line with the new Council Wards;

2.3 to agree that the three small areas of Bridge of Allan, Craigs and Cambusbarron Community Councils, which sit out-with the main Ward boundary of those Community Councils, should be represented by the same Forum to which the Community Council belongs;

2.4 to determine whether to dissolve Area Community Planning Forum 1 – Bridge of Allan, Dunblane and Logie;

2.5 to determine whether Bridge of Allan and Logie Community Councils should be given the opportunity to join Area 2, noting that this deviates from alignment with Ward boundaries;

2.6 to instruct the Director of Corporate Services to consider the resource and other implications of Dunblane receiving dedicated Community Planning support and Bridge of Allan and/or Logie being absorbed into Area 2 as part of the review of the Community Governance Strategy.

3 CONSIDERATIONS

Area Community Planning

3.1 In pursuit of its Strategic Aim for the ‘Promotion of Local Democracy & Community Leadership’ and its supporting Community Governance Strategy, the Council approved proposals for the establishment of an ‘Area Community Planning’ process in December 2004. It was agreed that seven new Area Community Planning Forums, be introduced. Wide consultation had taken place on the proposals which sought to reflect the new context provided by the Local Government in Act 2003 and the Local Governance (Scotland) Act 2004.

3.2 At that time, it was intended that the Forums would allow strategic issues within Local Community Plans to be drawn together in an Area Plan. This would allow the community to influence the corporate, budgetary and service planning of both Council and other public bodies – this being a key requirement of Community Planning legislation. It would also be possible for Community Planning Partners and the Council to monitor emergent Area Plans and determine corporate responses to the issues raised. Since that time, several progress reports have been submitted to Council on the Area Community Planning process.

3.3 As a result of views expressed at a Community Conference held on October 2005, a consultation process was held with the area’s 41 Community Councils to ask if they considered whether it would be appropriate to amend their boundaries to make them coterminous with multi-member wards. Community Councils had also been asked their views on whether some Community Councils would benefit from being warded and whether Area Community Planning boundaries should also be altered. The majority of the Community Councils who had responded had been in favour of coterminosity for both Community Council and Area Community Planning Forum boundaries. 3.4 Consequently, the Council agreed that a formal statutory consultation process be undertaken between 10 July and 7 September 2006 to consider amendment of the Community Council Scheme of Establishment (and other related issues). The responses from both the pre and statutory consultation processes indicated that consultees considered it appropriate to amend both Community Council and Area Community Planning Forum boundaries. No new subdivision of Community Council boundaries was considered necessary.

3.5 In considering the outcome from both consultations the Council agreed (14 September 2006) that all Community Council boundaries be brought into line with the Multi-Member Ward boundaries, creating a new Community Council – Hillpark & Milton and moving Manor Powis & Craigmill into , with the exception of some disputed areas which should be retained by Bridge of Allan, Craigs and Cambusbarron Community Councils. It was noted at that time, that whilst this option would not achieve full coterminosity it could give the Council a starting point for any future review of boundaries by the Boundary Commission.

3.6 It was further agreed that a report be brought to the first Council following the May 2007 elections setting out proposals to bring Area Community Planning Forum boundaries into line with the newly operative Multi-Member Wards.

Community Conference

3.7 In pursuance of the Council’s decision, a Community Conference was held on 16 June 2007 following the May 2007 local elections. The conference brought together community representatives and the newly elected Councillors for Stirling Council to enable them to meet and discuss how they could work together now that the new Council had been established. The Conference also asked the communities to give consideration to bringing Area Community Planning Forum boundaries into line with the new Council Wards as previously agreed by Council and considered wider aspects of Community Council support.

3.8 In general, the feedback from community representatives regarding the operation of Area Community Planning was positive, with a number of community representatives noting that they had previously been sceptical about the process but were now happy with how it was operating. The only Area where this was not the case was Area 1 – Bridge of Allan, Dunblane and Logie. The issues specific to Area 1 are dealt with separately within the report at 3.12 - 3.18.

3.9 In relation to the issue of bringing Forum boundaries into line with the Council Wards the consensus of Conference discussion appeared to be that communities should be allowed to group themselves in a way that was natural to them rather than being confined to Council Ward boundaries. There was also some discussion on how best communities could work with the new Councillors. On both of these issues it was considered that communities would benefit from a further opportunity to discuss them locally before giving a definitive view. As a result, it was agreed that communities be further consulted over the summer to enable them to give more considered feedback on the issues discussed at the Conference. This consultation has now been completed. The detailed feedback has been deposited in the Members Lounge and the main points are set out below. Boundaries

3.10 Moving the Forums’ boundaries into line with the Wards will require changes to the composition of Areas 2, 3, 4 and 5. The rationale for which is to have communities and Councillors working together within the same geographic area to advance the interests of people from that area to greatest effect. The Forums’ composition now and after the proposed Ward changes are set out in Appendices 1 and 2 respectively. Varying degrees of response have been received from all affected Areas.

3.11 Area 2 provided a Forum response, stating that its current communities wish to continue working as they are together as they have taken time to make progress together and have identified a number of issues in common. Craigs and Riverside Community Councils stated quite specifically that they did not want to transfer to a new Forum in line with Ward 6.

3.12 Although none of the communities in Area 3 provided a direct response the Area Champion has advised that the Forum’s communities are aware of the decision that is to be taken by the Executive/Council and are comfortable with applying whatever is decided.

3.13 Area 4’s response was supportive of the comment made by Hillpark & Milton Community Council at the Conference, which was that that community should stay in Area 4 where it had natural links.

3.14 In Area 5, Carron Valley Community Council has advised that its Community Councillors have no definite view as to whether it is more beneficial to remain in Area 5 or to move to Area 3.

3.15 So, as was the case at the Conference, where preferences have been expressed, the general consensus seems to be that communities would prefer to continue working within their current Forum groupings. In the light of this, Council is asked to determine upon whether it wishes to leave the boundaries as they currently stand or move them in line with the Ward boundaries as was originally intended.

3.16 If the Forums remain as they currently stand some communities have suggested that Councillors may wish to attend Forums on a rotational system similar to that being used for attendance at some Community Councils, as this would prevent Councillors having to attend two or more sets of Forum meetings.

3.17 In respect of the secondary issue of three small areas that sit within the revised boundaries of Bridge of Allan, Cambusbarron and Craigs Community Councils but out-with the new Ward boundaries, community responses have been clear that these areas should sit within whichever Forum the Community Council is allocated. This is a simple and logical approach, with no major disadvantages.

Area 1 – Bridge of Allan, Dunblane & Logie

3.18 In addition to the main issue of boundaries, a concern regarding the viability of Area 1 – Bridge of Allan, Dunblane & Logie was also raised at the Conference. Dunblane Community Council has been sceptical about the value of Area Community Planning for Dunblane since the process began and has had limited involvement in the process as a result. Bridge of Allan and Logie Community Councils have sought to work with other community groups in Dunblane to pursue the development of the Forum but this has not been easy to sustain and became harder still when the re-establishment of Bridge of Allan Community Council was delayed until the early 2007 mop-up elections.

3.19 To clarify a way forward for these communities a meeting was held on 12 September 2007 (meeting note lodged in the Members Lounge). Community Councillors from Bridge of Allan did not attend, preferring to discuss the issue at their next Community Council meeting, which was held on 18 October 2007. Only one representative of the Logie community attended so the meeting mainly reflected the views of Dunblane.

3.20 The outcome of the meeting held on 12 September has been a request from Dunblane Community Council and other local groups that a Forum/think tank be established for Dunblane alone and be supported by the Council – possibly using the resources set-aside for Area Community Planning in Area 1. The rationale being that this would help the community review its Local Community Plan and reflect the independent nature of Dunblane as a town.

3.21 It may be best for Council to delay any decision on this matter, so that the resource issues it raises can be fully considered during the review of the Community Governance Strategy. However, it is worth noting that there is an established process for developing/reviewing local community plans. This is to pursue such development/review within resources, with the support of the Council’s Communities Team and Community Planning Partnership Manager. The Service Manager – Communities has already had discussions with representatives from Dunblane Community Council and Trust about reviewing its Local Community Plan during which she alerted them to sources of funding. The Community Planning Partnership Manager has also made it clear that Community Planning monies would be available as soon as the community started to work on review of its plan.

3.22 It may also be worth noting at this time that although Dunblane is the largest settlement with a population of 8,311 it is not the only town/Community Council in the Stirling area of such significant size and identity. , Bridge of Allan, Broomridge and even , due to its hub status if not size alone, could all make similar cases.

3.23 When Bridge of Allan Community Council met on 18 October, it was aware of the position that had been taken by Dunblane and as a result considered that there was little to be gained from trying to continue to pursue Area Community Planning within the Area 1 boundary. It had always had doubts about the commonality it and Logie would have with Dunblane but had been willing to try to make it work. Having made a sustained attempt it now considers that further attempts would be futile.

3.24 However, Bridge of Allan Community Councillors consider that they do have links with communities such as Causewayhead, Cornton, Raploch and Riverside. As such, Bridge of Allan Community Council intends to approach the communities of Area Community Planning Forum 2 to seek their support for Bridge of Allan to be absorbed into that Area. They also wonder if Logie would be interested in such a possibility. Bridge of Allan Community Council requests the Executive to support them in such a move, to enable them to benefit from the added value it considers the Area Community Planning process has the potential to offer. If the Executive is minded to do so it may be best to consider any additional resource requirements this expanded Area may have through the review of the Community Governance Strategy. Councillors and Communities

3.25 Communities were asked to consider four questions on their relationships with the new Councillors/Wards as part of this consultation process: • What could make it difficult for communities and Councillors to work together in the new Wards? • What could the benefits be of communities working with three or four Councillors instead of one? • How can communities and your new Councillors work together to get the best results for your locality/area? • What needs to occur/be put in place to help this happen?

3.26 Eleven Community Councils and one voluntary sector organisation responded to these questions and have given fairly positive assessments of the potential of the new Ward/representative arrangements – please see the responses lodged in the Members Lounge. It would be helpful to discuss the feedback to these questions in more detail with Members at the Seminar, which is suggested in the accompanying report on this Agenda “Review of the Council’s Community Governance Strategy”.

3.27 A key issue that emerges from the feedback, is the importance of Community Councils having a clear system of communication with the Council. Indeed this has been a criticism of the Council for many years now. It is an issue that was raised by Bridge of Allan Community Council towards the end of 2006, and similar views came through at the recent Conference. The issue has also been raised by Area Community Planning Forum 2 as one of its priorities. Work is already underway to develop and implement a tracking system for Community Council correspondence. In reviewing the Community Governance Strategy, this issue will be further explored and examined. 3.28 The debate about amending Area Community Planning boundaries to make them coterminous with multi-member wards has been on-going now for some 2 years. Different geographical barriers can cause difficulties and can impede effective partnership working, especially when elected members and key partner agencies are required to work across different multiple boundaries. The Council will no doubt wish to be sensitive to the way in which certain geographical communities identify with others and will wish to attempt to reconcile the views of its constituent communities. Geographical barriers can, of course, be overcome but only if there is sufficient effort and flexibility amongst elected members and partners who may have to cut across these in order to respond to issues of community concern. 3.29 The Council is requested to weigh-up the views expressed over the course of consultations on this issue in reaching its conclusions on whether to (a) leave Area Community Planning boundaries as they currently stand or (b) bring Area Community Planning boundaries into line with the new Council Wards (c) refer other issues relating to resourcing etc. of the Forums to the review of the Community Governance Strategy; and (d) consider the issues raised regarding Councillor/community interaction in more depth at a members Seminar which will form part of the review of the Community Governance Strategy.

4 POLICY/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS

Policy Implications ) Diversity (age, disability, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation) No Sustainability (community, economic, environmental) Yes Corporate/Service Plan Yes Existing Policy or Strategy Yes Risk Yes Resource Implications Financial Yes People Yes Land and Property or IT Systems No Consultations Internal or External Consultations Yes

Policy Implications

4.1 The Council’s commitment to the development of our Community Councils and Area Community Forums is set out in the Council’s Community Governance Strategy. This Strategy is due for review (reflected in Corporate and Service planning) and any decisions taken by Council at this time will be reflected in the review process to ensure sustainable community engagement practices are in place. Ensuring fairness between communities and being aware of how this is perceived across communities is particularly relevant to the risk management of the Council’s engagement processes.

Resource Implications

4.2 Resources are in place to support the existing Area Community Planning process, both in terms of small budgets of £2,500 per Forum and support teams. These allocations will be re-assessed during the review of the Community Governance Strategy.

Consultations

4.3 Area Community Planning Forums, Community Councils, Trusts, Regeneration Groups, Community Services and Chief Executive’s.

5 BACKGROUND PAPERS

5.1 June 2007 Community Conference Note

5.2 June 2007 Community Conference Follow-up Consultation (lodged in the Members Lounge and available to the public on request.)

5.3 Note of Meeting – 12 September 2007 (Bridge of Allan, Dunblane and Logie) (lodged in the Members Lounge and available to the public on request.)

Author(s)

Name Designation Tel No/Extension Lyn Kennedy Community Governance Manager 01786 442476 Approved by

Name Designation Signature Bob Jack Director of Corporate Services

Date 16 September 2007 Reference N:\Governance\Zubbish\EX20071113CCon fConsult.doc

Appendix 1

Current Area Community Planning Forums

Area 1 Bridge of Allan, Dunblane and Logie

Area 2 Cambuskenneth, Causewayhead, Cornton, Craigs, Mercat Cross & City Centre, Raploch and Riverside

Area 3 Borestone, Broomridge, Cambusbarron, Kings Park and Torbrex

Area 4 Bannockburn, Cowie, Hillpark & Milton, and Polmaise

Area 5 Arnprior, , Buchanan, , Carron Valley & District, , , , , , and

Area 6 Callander, , Kilmadock, Port of Mentieth, Strathard, Thornhill & Blairdrummond and Trossachs

Area 7 , and Strathfillan [and St Fillans(NP)] Appendix 2

Area Community Planning Forums Changed to bring them in line with Wards

Area 1 Bridge of Allan, Dunblane and Logie (= Ward 3, Dunblane and Bridge of Allan)

Area 2 Cambuskenneth, Causewayhead, Cornton, Craigs, Mercat Cross & City Centre, Raploch and Riverside (= Ward 4, Castle)

Area 3 Borestone, Broomridge, Cambusbarron, Carron Valley & District, Kings Park and Torbrex (= Ward 5, Stirling West)

New Area Broomridge, Craigs, Hillpark & Milton, Riverside (= Ward 6, Stirling East)

Area 4 Bannockburn, Cowie, Plean and Polmaise (= Ward 7, Bannockburn)

Area 5 Arnprior, Balfron, Buchanan, Buchlyvie, Croftamie, Drymen, Fintry, Gargunnock, Killearn, Kippen and Strathblane (= Ward 2, Forth and Endrick)

Area 6 Callander, Gartmore, Kilmadock, Port of Mentieth, Strathard, Thornhill & Blairdrummond and Trossachs (= South of Ward 1, Trossachs and Teith)

Area 7 Balquhidder, Killin and Strathfillan [and St Fillans(NP)] (= North of Ward 1, Trossachs and Teith)