THE MORAY COUNCIL
MINUTE OF MEETING OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE
TUESDAY 20 OCTOBER 2015
COUNCIL OFFICE, ELGIN
PRESENT
Councillors J Cowe, (Chair), G Cowie, (Depute Chair), S Cree (ex-officio), G Alexander, G Coull, J Divers, G Leadbitter, G McDonald, A McLean, F Murdoch, P Paul, D Ross, R Shepherd and S Warren.
ALSO PRESENT
Councillor D Slater (for Item 5)
APOLOGIES
Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Councillor A Wright.
IN ATTENDANCE
The Chief Executive, the Head of Direct Services, the Head of Development Services, the Legal Services Manager (Property & Contracts), the Transportation Manager, the Roads Maintenance Manager, the Public Transport Manager, the Planning and Economic Development Manager, the Senior Engineer Traffic, Carl Coghill Technician (Consultancy), Andy Jamieson, Community Safety Officer and the Democratic Services Manager as Clerk to the Meeting.
1. DECLARATION OF GROUP DECISIONS
In terms of Standing Order 20 and the Councillors’ Code of Conduct, Councillor Leadbitter declared a personal interest in Item 6 “Elgin Western Link Road – Design Changes and Cost Review”. The Meeting noted that there were no further declarations from group leaders or spokespersons in regard to any prior decisions taken on how members will vote on any item on the agenda or any declarations of member’s interests in respect of any item on the agenda.
2. MINUTE OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES COMMITTEE DATED 25 AUGUST 2015
The Minute of the meeting of the Economic Development and Infrastructure Services Committee dated 25 August 2015 was submitted and approved.
3. WRITTEN QUESTIONS
The Meeting noted that no written questions had been submitted.
4. FLOOD PROTECTION SCHEME FEASIBILITY STUDIES
A report was submitted by the Corporate Director (Economic Development, Planning & Infrastructure) asking the Committee to consider studies into potential flood protection schemes at Hopeman, Dallas, Portessie and Arradoul and agree a course of action, making recommendations to The Moray Council where there are budgetary implications.
On the invitation of the Chairman, Councillor Slater addressed the meeting and stated that he wished to thank everyone for the welcome he had received since he was elected following the by-election on the 1 October 2015 and thanked the Chairman for allowing him the opportunity to address the meeting in relation to the proposed flood protection scheme for Hopeman. He further stated that, in his opinion, a strong business case had been presented in respect of a flood protection scheme for Hopeman and urged the Committee to recommend it to the Council.
Following discussion the Committee agreed to recommend to The Moray Council that flood protection schemes for Hopeman and Portessie are taken forward as detailed in the report.
During further discussion in relation to flood protection for Dallas Councillor Murdoch, seconded by Councillor Paul, moved that the Committee agree to progress a scheme for Dallas; that a more detailed report on the options be provided to the Moray Council meeting and that a site visit be undertaken prior to the meeting of the Council.
In response the Head of Direct Services advised that due to the timescale for reporting to the next meeting of the Council it may not be possible to provide this information in time and therefore consideration in relation to a flood prevention scheme for Dallas may need to be deferred.
Thereafter following further discussion, and with the agreement of Councillor Murdoch and Councillor Paul, the Committee agreed that it is supportive of flood protection for Dallas beyond the 1 in 200 design standard and that it recommend to the Moray Council consideration of the detail and cost for flood protection for Dallas and that site visit be arranged prior to the Council meeting.
During further discussion Councillor Ross, seconded by Councillor Coull, moved that a report be provided to this Committee giving information on the issues raised in regard to silting up of rivers and dredging and what measurement the Council uses in regard to silting. There being no-one otherwise minded this was agreed.
Following further discussion and in response to a query raised by Councillor Leadbitter, it was agreed that a briefing be provided to Members on emergency procedures for Dallas in the event of surface water flooding.
In relation to Arradoul, Councillor Warren sought an assurance that this Committee will receive a report on Property Level Protection (PLP) in the future and asked whether the surface water drainage issues experienced on the A98 could be looked at meantime.
In response the Consultancy Manager advised that PLP was a national issue that was currently being looked at and once the national position is agreed that a report in regard to PLPs will be provided to a future meeting of this Committee and that he would refer the issues raised in regard to the surface water drainage to Roads Maintenance.
Following further discussion Councillor McDonald asked what advice could the Council provide to communities to enable them to help themselves to protect their properties from flooding.
In response the Consultancy Manager confirmed the advice available from the Council and the Scottish Flood Forum and that this will be provided to communities to enable them to protect their own properties.
Thereafter the Committee agreed:
(i) to recommend to The Moray Council that Flood Protection Schemes for Hopeman and Portessie are taken forward and the Capital Plan amended to include £830,000 for the Hopeman scheme and £3.65 million for the Portessie scheme;
(ii) that this Committee is supportive of flood protection for Dallas beyond the normal 1 in 200 year design standard and to recommend that The Moray Council consider the detail and cost of a scheme for flood protection for Dallas;
(iii) that further clarification on options available be provided within the report to the Moray Council and that a site visit to Dallas be undertaken prior to the Council meeting;
(iv) that a briefing note be provided to Members on emergency procedures for Dallas;
(v) to note once the national position is agreed that a report in regard to PLPs will be provided to a future meeting of this Committee and that in the meantime communities will be provided with information to enable them to protect their own properties;
(vi) that the issues raised in relation to flooding/drainage issues on the A98 at Arradoul be referred to Roads Maintenance;
(vii) that a report be provided to a future meeting providing information on the issues raised in regard to silting up of rivers and dredging and what measurement the Council uses in regard to silting.
(viii) that there is no practical or economic means of providing further flood protection to Arradoul by means of a Flood Protection Scheme and it was therefore not taken forward; and
(ix) to note the change to construction start date and opportunity of potential grant funding for Newmill Flood Protection Scheme Phase 2.
5. ELGIN WESTERN LINK ROAD – DESIGN CHANGES AND COST REVIEW
Under reference to paragraph 5 of the Minute of the Meeting of this Committee dated 25 November 2014, a report was submitted by the Corporate Director (Economic Development, Planning & Infrastructure) informing Committee of changes to the Elgin Western Link Road design intended to address reasons for the planning application being refused; to note cost changes since November 2014 and recommend that The Moray Council adjusts the Capital Plan accordingly.
Councillor Leadbitter, having declared a personal interest in this item, left the meeting at this juncture taking no part in the discussion or decision.
The Chairman stated that the report identified increased costs associated with the design changes which have arisen following a workshop held on 25 June 2015 following refusal of the planning application, and which included a stakeholder group comprising those who spoke at the planning hearing. He further stated that whilst there was legitimate reasons for the increased costs, there was in his view, an even more positive business case to promote the scheme and referred to a recent Scottish Government announcement that 50,000 affordable houses are to be built in the next 5 years, the dualling of the A96 which he believed will complement the Western Link Road and the investment in the rail link between Aberdeen and Inverness which will increase the number of train journeys between Elgin and Inverness with the coincidental closing of the Wards Road crossing on a more regular basis and for longer periods.
He further reminded Members that the purpose of the report was to consider the financial implications of the amendments to the Scheme and to make a recommendation on the increased cost to the Moray Council and that in terms of the Code of Conduct and good governance Members should not become involved in the detail of the changes made to the Scheme which properly fall to be considered as part of any revised planning application to be submitted. In conclusion he recommended approval of the recommendations to the Committee and so moved.
Councillor Ross sought clarification as to whether the Chairman could move approval of the recommendations before any information had been provided by officers or discussion had taken place.
In response Mrs Scott, Legal Services Manager (Property and Contracts) advised that the detail was in the report for Members and that further clarification of points could be provided by the Consultancy Manager but that it was open to the Chairman, having introduced the report and the details there to move the recommendations.
Following a summary of the background to the report by the Consultancy Manager, Councillor McDonald stated that he has had consistent issues with this project on economic grounds and he believed that both the capital and revenue costs should be looked at together. He further referred to the progressing of the dualling of the A96 and to the report stating the Council’s position regarding the A96 and in particular to the comments relating to the junction strategy from which he quoted “that the Moray Council would seek to ensure that access and egress from non trunk roads onto the dual A96 maximise the opportunities for population growth and economic development with Moray. The Moray Council remained concerned about the impact that the choice of route and the placings of the junctions may have on the existing road network if it causes traffic to find new routes into the community.” He further quoted in relation to the route options within Moray “there is insufficient detail in relation to the high level route options for the Council to form an opinion on preferred route corridors at this stage. Much will depend on the final route corridor and the dynamic impact which this will have on travel within Moray”. He stated that his contention was that until the Council know what is actually happening in regard to the A96, the Council should not proceed with this project and moved as an amendment that the Council do not proceed with this project and revisit it when the Council has better detail of the impact that the dualling of the A96 will have in Elgin.
Mrs Scott, Legal Services Manager (Property and Contracts) advised that in terms of the competency of the motion put forward by Councillor McDonald, the terms of the motion not to progress the project would put this Committee in conflict both in terms of the Moray Local Development Plan which was approved by of the Planning and Regulatory Services Committee and which has the Western Link Road (WLR) as TSPs within consideration of development within Elgin which also has developments predicated on the development of the WLR and with the decision of the Moray Council which was to agree that this is a strategic project of the Council. She therefore suggested that the terms of the amendment be amended to simply refer the matter to the Moray Council for its consideration and its interest in the project as a strategic project of the Council but without any support for the financial increase detailed in the report and therefore recommendation 2.1 (iii) could be amended to read “to refer the matter to The Moray Council for its consideration and note the concerns raised”, but that he could not simply say that there is no support for this project.
Councillor McDonald sought clarification in regard to the decision by the Council to leave consideration of this project with this Committee and sought advice on whether a decision could be deferred until more detail is made available on the A96 dualling?
In response Mrs Scott re-iterated her advice in terms of Section (II)(7) of the Administration Scheme and as the suggestion from Councillor McDonald was to defer the matter without specifying any time this would still potentially put the matter in conflict with the Development Plan and the full Council as this was a strategic priority of the council.
Councillor McDonald stated that whilst not happy with the advice, and which he wished be recorded in the minute, he would concede that the matter be put to the full Council.
Councillor Ross stated that he did not accept the legal advice given and asked how not progressing the WLR would be in conflict with the Planning and Regulatory Services Committee who had agreed to refuse the planning application for the WLR.
In response Mrs Scott referred to the decision of this Committee on 25 November 2014 and the full Council on 17 December 2014, to reaffirm the WLR as a strategic project of the Council. She further stated that the decision of the Planning and Regulatory Services Committee to refuse the planning application stands on its own. This Committee instructed officers to try and address the issues that had arisen during consideration of the planning application and that has been undertaken and has been brought back to this Committee to confirm that between those changes and the delay there have been increased costs and for that then to be considered by the full Council. She further advised that both this Committee and the full Council have accepted that they are not revisiting the planning application and it was not beneficial to revisit that at this meeting.
Councillor Ross stated that it was his understanding that in terms of the Administration Scheme, the full Council determines items of conflict between service committees and he was unsure whether the legal advice given was correct in terms of a service committee and the full Council disagreeing and therefore Councillor McDonald’s motion was, in his opinion, competent.
In response, Mrs Scott advised that she had already given her view on that and as this has been confirmed as a strategic project of the Council discussions in relation to deferral need to be made by the full Council and stood by her legal advice which was for the Chairman to rule upon.
Under the terms of Standing Order 81, the Chairman stated that he accepted the legal advice given.
Councillor Alexander stated that the purpose of this report was to refer the matter to the Moray Council for consideration of the recommendation that the Capital Plan be adjusted to reflect the revised figures, and therefore he seconded the motion put forward by the Chairman.
Councillor Ross stated that he wished to seek legal advice in regard to an e-mail from the Leader of the Council which had come into his possession that was addressed to the Administration Group Members appointed to this Committee which stated that he wished to confirm the continued support for the WLR and asking any Member who had difficulty with this to contact him and which e-mail had been sent before the report had been provided to Members.
The Chief Executive advised that he was unsure of the competency of the issue raised by Councillor Ross as the conduct of Members was not an item for discussion of the agenda and that the proper time for Councillor Ross to have raised the matter would have been under Item 2 Declaration of Interests and wished to seek legal advice in regard to this.
Under the terms of Standing Order 24 the Chairman called a short adjournment to the meeting to allow the Chief Executive to seek legal advice on the competency of the issues raised.
On the resumption of the Meeting the Chairman reminded the Committee of the item of business under discussion and re-iterated his motion that the Committee agree the recommendations as outlined at paragraphs 2.1 (i) – (iii) of the report. Councillor Alexander seconded the motion.
Councillor McDonald moved as an amendment that the Committee recommend to the full Council that it does not proceed with the WLR at this time until more information is known about the A96 dualling. Councillor Coull seconded the amendment.
As a further amendment Councillor Ross moved that this Committee does not permit members of the Administration to vote on this matter, given the information he previously supplied regarding the e-mail that there had been a decision taken by the Administration Members to support the WLR and anyone who foresaw any difficulty in doing that had to contact the Leader of the Council, that e-mail being sent prior to the report being submitted and therefore, in his opinion, a decision had been taken prior to all the information being known.
In response the Chairman stated that he knew nothing of that order and does not know how any member of this Committee might vote and sought legal advice on the terms of Councillor Ross’ amendment.
Mrs Scott advised that in terms of the discussion she had had with Councillor Ross, during the adjournment, in the presence of the Democratic Services Manager as the Committee’s adviser, that the time to have raised the information that he had in relation to the e-mail would have been at Item 2 in relation to the Declaration of Interests. Councillor Ross stated that he had been waiting to see what members of the Administration Group did and did not raise it at that point. She advised that he should have raised any concerns he had at that point. She further advised that Councillor Ross did not agree with the legal advice she had given him but that her position remained that the information he had raised does confirm that the Leader of the Council did contact members of the Administration Group, however there is no information available as to how members responded and from her understanding of what Councillor Ross read out there was no whip or line saying how members of the Administration had to vote and therefore in her opinion does not bring members into conflict with the Code of Conduct but again Councillor Ross did not agree with her view on that. In terms of the amendment, she advised that whilst she had no issue with this, the manner in which it was raised were entirely inappropriate.
Councillor Cree stated that in order to clarify the issues raised, he would refer himself to the Standards Commission immediately following the meeting for them to determine whether the events in the normal working of any council administration were traduced. He further stated that there was no whip within the Administration and that this has always been the case and evidenced in how current and former Members of the Administration have voted previously in relation to strategic matters and was more than happy to let an independent body examine his actions and for them to determine the findings.
On failing to find a seconder, Councillor Ross’ amendment fell.
In response to a question raised by Councillor Ross which related to the grounds for refusal of the planning application, Mrs Scott reminded the Committee that in terms questions relating to the detail of the planning application, Members should be mindful of not compromising their position as members of the Planning and Regulatory Services Committee by asking detailed questions relating to the planning policies which featured in the refusal and which will be a matter for the Planning and Regulatory Services to discuss. In terms of this Committee the report was providing members with the financial information for consideration and not the detail in terms of the changes.
Councillor Ross sought further clarification on what the committee could discuss as he did not understand why he could not ask detailed questions relating to the reasons the planning application had been refused.
The Head of Development Services, in agreeing with the legal advice given, advised that the issues raised by Councillor Ross would be addressed at the time an amended planning application was submitted to the Planning and Regulatory Services Committee.
Following further discussion during which Officers responded to questions raised, the Chairman asked that the vote be taken.
On a division there voted:
For the Motion (6) Councillors Cowe, Alexander, Cowie, Divers, Murdoch and Shepherd
For the Amendment (6) Councillors McDonald, Coull, McLean, Paul, Ross and Warren
Abstentions (0)
In terms of Standing Order 65 (e), there being an equality of voting, the Chair exercised his casting vote in favour of the Motion.
Accordingly the Motion became the finding of the Meeting and the Committee agreed to:
(i) note the changes to the design that emerged from consultation with WSP Consultants and stakeholders and the feedback from them;
(ii) note the changes in cost due principally to delays, property, preparing a new planning application and utilities; and
(iii) refer this matter to The Moray Council for consideration with a recommendation that the Capital Plan be adjusted to reflect the revised figures as detailed in paragraph 3.17 of the report.
6. CAR CLUBS IN MORAY
A report was submitted by the Corporate Director (Economic Development, Planning & Infrastructure) informing Committee of the current position regarding Car Clubs in Moray and seeking support for the development of Car Clubs in Moray.
Following consideration the Committee agreed to:
(i) support the principle of Car Clubs in Moray; and
(ii) approve the carrying out of a feasibility study with Carplus into the expansion of Car Share in Moray as outlined in paragraph 5 of the report and which will include the options for integrating a Car Club scheme with the Council’s pool car provision.
7. HARBOURS FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY
There was submitted a report by the Corporate Director (Economic Development, Planning & Infrastructure) asking Committee to approve actions as outlined within the report that move towards the harbours being sustainable within the context of their revenue budget.
Following consideration the Committee agreed to:
(i) endorse the principle that harbours should as far as possible be self-funding;
(ii) approve the development of proposals to move towards the harbours revenue budget delivering a sustainable position, with a the detail of such proposals being brought forward to a future committee meeting (s); and
(iii) note the decision of the Cullen, Findochty & Portknockie Harbour Advisory Committee to split into three separate Harbour Advisory Committees.
8. WASTE STRATEGY – CONSOLIDATION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
Under reference to paragraph 17 of the Minute of the Meeting of this Committee dated 7 April 2015 a report was submitted by the Corporate Director (Economic Development, Planning & Infrastructure) asking Committee to approve a plan to consolidate and develop the Council’s waste management facilities to ensure these remain fit for purpose and will continue to enable delivery of the Council’s Waste Strategy in the approach to 2020 when a ban on the deposit of biodegradable waste to landfill will come into force.
During discussion confirmation was sought that consultation and engagement with the community would be undertaken as early in the process as possible in order to address any potential concerns that may arise. In response the Head of Direct Services advised that he would be happy to take that on board.
Thereafter the Committee agreed to:
(i) note the various issues across Direct Services depots as detailed in the report;
(ii) approve in principle Option 2 as detailed in the report, comprising the development of an integrated facility at Moycroft to facilitate the consolidation of the Lossiemouth Materials Recovery Facility, the cleansing depot at Brumley Brae, Environmental Protection office at Ashgrove and the Housing DLO at Tyock
(iii) recommend to The Moray Council that:
a. officers progress towards detailed design and planning at a cost of £80k to be included in 2015/16 capital plan and;
b. £1.61m be included in the capital plan for 2016/17 and £1.61m in 2017/18 to develop the Moycroft site, noting that this is supported by the savings that can be realised as identified in section 10 of this report, subject to a financial case still being made;
c. it note that a further report will be submitted once detailed costs have been obtained and subject to the final Business case being approved by the Asset Management Working Group, and
d. community consultation/ engagement will be included at an early stage to address any potential concerns that may arise.
9. SAFETY AROUND SCHOOLS
Councillor Alexander left the meeting during discussion of this item.
Under reference to paragraph 8 of the Minute of the Meeting of this Committee dated 10 February a report was submitted by the Corporate Director (Economic Development, Planning & Infrastructure) informing Committee of the progress made since the previous report on the subject which provided information of a proposed methodology for investigating road safety issues around schools and gave details for a collaborative approach between Transportation and Education Officers to identify issues and appropriate solutions.
During discussion concern was raised in regard to how parents were parking for lengthy periods in the designated drop off layby at New Elgin Primary School during school time and whether any action could be taken to prevent this. In response the Senior Engineer (Traffic) advised that he would raise the issue with Police Scotland.
Councillor McDonald stated that it was his recollection that when the safety around schools issue was previously discussed at the meeting of this Committee in February 2015, he raised the issue of St Peter’s Primary School which has a complex traffic situation and on reviewing the report noted that it mentioned that the schools that feature in the report presented at this meeting were identified as trial sites over the next three months, followed by a prioritised programme with trigger levels for rolling out the risk assessments at other schools in Moray, however there was no reference to this within this report. He asked whether this had been dropped or if it was still going ahead and could he be advised if there is any chance that St Peter’s could be looked at as it has been an issue for some time.
The Senior Engineer (Traffic) advised that this report was predominately feeding back on the three schools discussed but some work had been undertaken at St Peter’s Primary School and while he was expecting that school to have a large proportion of children being brought to school by vehicle due to the nature of the school, he was surprised that whilst there was a high proportion being driven to school there was a much larger number who could walk or cycle to school than do and it was intended that work be undertaken with the school to develop more sustainable travel choices for their pupils. He further advised that the report mentioned Travel Tracker which has been rolled out and offered to every primary school in Moray and was pleased to advise that a number of schools have adopted it and in October there had been a national campaign for Travel Tracker where they have been providing statistics on active travel in schools and of the top ten schools in Scotland which have been reported on a daily basis, Moray has frequently four or five of the top ten in Scotland.
During further discussion, and in reference to paragraph 3.3 of the report Councillor Warren sought clarification in regard to the consultation that had been undertaken in May 2015 as to whether this related to the proposal for the installation of traffic lights and when Members would be provided with a copy of the outcome of the consultation.
In response the Senior Engineer (Traffic) advised that the consultation on improvements to routes to schools did include the proposal to introduce traffic lights and that he would circulate the details of the consultation to the local ward members.
Thereafter the Committee agreed:
(i) to acknowledge efforts to put pressure on Transport Scotland to provide a controlled crossing of the A96 from the North College Street/Pansport Road corridor to East End Primary School;
(ii) to acknowledge efforts to put pressure on Transport Scotland to improve pedestrian and cycle facilities on the A96 south side between Queen Street and Reiket Land;
(iii) to support the ongoing Road Safety and Sustainable Travel programmes delivered by Schools and the Traffic Team, including encouraging another Park and Stride scheme at St Sylvester’s;
(iv) that Officers raise with Police Scotland the issues raised in relation to the enforcement of stopping restrictions at the drop off layby at New Elgin Primary School during school time, and
(v) that the outcome of the consultation undertaken in May 2015 in relation to improvements on routes to schools be circulated to the local Members.
10. ELGIN BUS STATION IMPROVEMENTS
Under reference to paragraph 7 of the Minute of the Meeting of this Committee dated 25 August 2015 a report was submitted by the Corporate Director (Economic Development, Planning & Infrastructure) seeking authority for Council officers to work with officers of Elgin Business Improvement District (BID) should a funding bid by Elgin BID to provide enhancements to infrastructure in Elgin Bus Station, as outlined in the Elgin Charrette final report and “Proposed Central Elgin Action Plan – First 12 months” be successful.
Following consideration the Committee agreed to:
(i) note that Elgin BID in partnership with the Council has submitted an application for funding improvements to the Bus Station to the Town Centre Capital Communities Fund;
(ii) note that this funding is not guaranteed, and therefore also
(iii) approve officers seeking alternative funding should the above application not be successful.
11. DIRECT SERVICES AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) CAPITAL AND REVENUE BUDGET MONITORING TO 31 AUGUST 2015
Under reference to paragraphs 9-11 of the Minute of the Meeting of this Committee dated 12 February 2015 a report was submitted by the Corporate Director (Economic Development, Planning & Infrastructure) informing Committee of the current position regarding Direct Services and Development Services (Economic Development) Capital and Revenue Budgets.
During discussion and in reference to paragraph 6.5.6 of the report which stated that the Strategic Route action Plan B9016 Buckie – Keith would be the subject of a separate report to this meeting, clarification was sought as to why no report appeared on the business of the agenda.
In response the Head of Direct Services advised that the information had not been available in time for a report to be submitted and that a report would be provided to the next meeting of this Committee.
Following consideration the Committee agreed to note:
(i) the budget monitoring report for the period to 31 August 2015, and (ii) that a report on the Strategic Route Action Plan B9016 Buckie – Keith would be provided to the next meeting of this Committee
12. DREDGER NAME
Under reference to paragraph 20 of the Minute of the Meeting of this Committee dated 28 August 2012, a report was submitted by the Corporate Director (Economic Development, Planning & Infrastructure) asking Committee to select a name for the new dredger from the shortlist provided following a competition with primary schools from Moray’s coastal communities to name the dredger.
During discussion Councillor McDonald, seconded by Councillor Warren proposed the name ‘Selkie’.
Councillor Shepherd proposed the name ‘Moray Puffin’. In seconding this name, Councillor Murdoch stated that as this would be a Moray vessel, it would be appropriate to include the word ‘Moray’ within the name.
Following further discussion during which the Committee were reminded that the shortlist of names had been provided by the pupils of the coastal primary schools who had been invited to take part in a competition to suggest a name for the new dredger, the meeting unanimously agreed the name ‘Selkie’.
Thereafter the Committee agreed:
(i) that the new dredger be named MV Selkie; and (ii) to instruct officers to proceed with this name being registered in association with the dredger vessel, and permanently installed on the vessel as part of the construction process.
13. MORAY SPEYSIDE TOURISM ANNUAL REPORT 2014-15
Under reference to paragraph 13 of the Minute of the Meeting of this Committee dated 11 March 2014 a report was submitted by the Corporate Director (Economic Development, Planning & Infrastructure) informing Committee of the work of Moray Speyside Tourism during the year 2014-15.
Following consideration the Committee agreed to note the annual report 2014-15 from Moray Speyside Tourism as detailed in Appendix 1 of the report.
14. NORTH EAST OF SCOTLAND FOOD AND DRINK STRATEGY
A report was submitted by the Corporate Director (Economic Development, Planning & Infrastructure) seeking endorsement from the Committee for the final draft of the North East of Scotland Food & Drink Strategy 2015-2020, as set out in Appendix 1 of the report.
Following consideration the Committee agreed to endorse the final draft of the North East of Scotland Food and Drink Strategy 2015-2020.
15. WORLD ORIENTEERING CHAMPIONSHIPS 2015
Under reference to paragraph 13 of the Minute of the Meeting of this Committee dated 11 March 2014 a report was submitted by the Corporate Director (Economic Development, Planning & Infrastructure) informing Committee of the estimated economic impact from the World Orienteering Championships held between 31 July and 7 August 2015.
Following consideration the Committee agreed to note the Highland 2015 Economic Impact Assessment – Report for World Orienteering Championships 2015 as set out in Appendix 1.
16. QUESTION TIME
Under reference to paragraph 21 of the Minute of this Committee dated 25 August 2015 Councillor Murdoch sought an update on when a briefing note would be provided to Members in regard to the Fair Travel Scheme. In response the Head of Development Services advised that he had understood that this had been circulated but would check and ensure this was provided to Members.
Councillor Ross stated that the provision of cycle paths did not feature in any of the displays relating to the dualling of the A96 and asked if there was an opportunity for the Council to ask Transport Scotland to consider including this during the design stage.
In response the Transportation Manager advised that Officers have continued to press this issue with Transport Scotland and in terms of the consultation process that is due to commence on the A96 proposals advised that the promotion of non transport users such as cyclists will be included in any response to Transport Scotland and that any response will be brought to Committee in the first instance.
Councillor McDonald in referring to pipeline works between Portgordon and Keith stated that in his opinion this would provide an opportunity for a cycle path to be created between the two locations.
In response the Transportation Manager advised that she would look into this and advise outcome to Councillor McDonald.
Under reference to paragraph 21 of the Minute of this committee dated 25 August 2015 Councillor McLean asked if any response had been received from Transport Scotland to the outcome of the Members workshop and what would the Council’s next steps be following the workshop?
In response the Head of Direct Services advised that it was the intention to contact Transport Scotland at the earliest opportunity to seek to engage with them as soon as possible on some of the concerns that have been expressed and gave an assurance that Officers were pro-actively seeking to arrange a meeting with Transport Scotland.