Minutes Monday 17 November 2008
Cittaslow Linlithgow Steering Group
Meeting on Monday 17 November
Lab 2, Low Port Centre 7.15pm
Present: Phil Murray (PM)(Chair),David Tait(DT),Jim Hay(JH), Jean Long(JL), Alan Young(AY),Ken Richardson(KR),
Also attending: Provost Tom Kerr(TK)
1.Apologies: Michael Bennett (MB) John Masson (JM)
2. Minutes of Previous Meeting 20.10.08
Agreed as an accurate record- no matters arising
3.Updates
- Finances-Account largely unchanged other than costs of meeting room hire-current balance -£1485.00
- Slowfood-No report in MB’s absence
- Plastic Bags campaign – PM reported on outcome of pilot shoppers survey conducted at a very wet October Farmers Market, namely limited numerical response but strong support for the campaign objectives. After discussion it was agreed that a full survey of shoppers be conducted on Saturday 6th December at 3 locations(Regent Centre/Cross area/Sainsbury Retail Park area. PM will prepare adequate survey forms and asked any volunteers to advise him of their availability for the survey period (9.30-11.30am). At JL’s suggestion, Soroptimists Group also to be contacted to ascertain their support/availability. Action: PM
- LivCom Awards; PM/TK reported on the outcome of WLC submission on behalf of Linlithgow to the LivCom Awards Finals in China in early November, where Linlithgow achieved a Bronze Award. The event provided an opportunity to raise the international profile of Linlithgow, established relevant links with a range of communities world wide with similar concerns and issues, and demonstrated a range of initiatives and projects some of which have the potential to be applied in a Linlithgow context. Full debrief of visit, its pluses and minuses to be held by WLC pre Christmas Action: PM/TK
4. Cittaslow Linlithgow - The Way Forward
PM summarised the outcome of the previous month’s discussion on this issue which focused upon the potential role for Cittaslow Linlithgow as a key component, on behalf of the community, in the proposed establishment of a four element (community/business/academia/public sector) Action Group, charged with the preparation of long term-15-20 year development strategy for the town. This proposal has been developed by DT/JH in the light of the autumn meeting at SUN of various interested community groups and individuals.
Following a re-iteration of the key points of the proposal from DT/JH for the benefit of those who were absent from the October meeting, lengthy and passionate discussion ensued, the key points arising from which included the following:
- DT/JH are convinced that their proposed strategy presents a real opportunity for Cittaslow to raise its profile/status as a group capable of reflecting the broad views/acting as an ‘ umbrella’ organisation on behalf of the community element of the proposed Action Group
- DT/JH emphasised their view that many of the 6 criteria groupings against which Linlithgow’s Cittaslow bid was assessed are already the focus remit of a range of existing organisations (e.g Civic Trust/Heritage Trust/Linlithgow Climate Challenge Group etc), as a result of which there is a natural synergy which could be utilised to everyone’s benefit. Individual organisations could continue to pursue these remits with the only change being that they would be invited to form part of an expanded Cittaslow Linlithgow Steering Group, in order that all participants on the latter are aware of ongoing initiatives and achievements, have the opportunity to offer practical assistance where appropriate, to minimise risk of duplication of effort and resources, and, hopefully, to add value to individual organisations’ efforts to improve different aspects of Linlithgow’s environment.
- In response to concerns expressed by AY about the role and objectives of the proposed Action Group, DT/JH indicated that the remit is to undertake the preparation of a community strategy regarding the long term development of Linlithgow, and where people see Linlithgow in 15-20 years; such an initiative is not a short term fix, but is intended to be a practical and achievable response to the drive, at both national and local political level, for increased community planning and greater subsidiarity, in terms of devolving decision making to the most practical local level. AY continued to express reservations about the relationship between the proposed Action Group and existing statutory documents such as the West Lothian Local Plan. DT acknowledged that fact, but emphasised that the remit of the Action Group would, so far as input to WLC strategic thinking is concerned, be focused on the next round of Strategic and Local Development Plans to be prepared over the next 5 years. AY also raised the issue of the potential relationship with the Town Centre Management Group
- TK indicated that while WLC reps had had initial discussions with DT/JH regarding the proposed initiative, and had expressed support in principle, the Council had yet to consider, let alone approve any formal report setting out the details of the proposal, its structures, objectives, resourcing and operation. Until such time as it did, the Council’s approved Local Plan would retain its primacy in relation to the longer term development aspirations of any community within West Lothian. He requested that he be involved in any further discussions between DT/JH and WLC on this issue.
- KR apologised for his enforced absence from recent Steering Group; he re-iterated his view expressed at earlier meetings, that Cittaslow Linlithgow Steering Group has first to articulate its own objectives, what initiatives it wishes to take forward, either individually or in partnership with other Groups/agencies, based on achieving progress in relation to relevant assessment criteria. This, in KR’s view, should be the key priority for Cittaslow, with any wider responsibility such as the ‘umbrella’ role within the Action Group structure, as advocated by DT/JH, evolving from the delivery of those objectives. Until such time as that point is reached, the Town Centre Management Group, given its ‘broad church’ membership profile, should be capable of performing the ‘umbrella’ role on behalf of the Linlithgow community. KR acknowledged the merits, in a Linlithgow context, of trying to get the community, with its wealth of local groups and organisations ‘to speak with one voice’ on strategic issues, but emphasised that such a role pre-supposes clarity and agreement on our own part on what Cittaslow Linlithgow’s objectives are, and how they might relate to other community groups’, in order that they have confidence in Cittaslow Linlithgow’s suitability to fulfil the proposed ‘umbrella’ role on their behalf.
- JL ,supported by AY, voiced ‘political’ (with a small ’p’) concerns about Cittaslow Linlithgow setting themselves up as an ‘umbrella’ community voice, with as yet, no track record of achievement on the ground, beyond the delivery of a successful Cittaslow bid. Until such time as that track record of achievements was delivered, whether by means of the Plastic Bag Campaign or via other initiatives designed to help maintain and enhance the town’s Cittaslow status, it seems premature/presumptuous to present Cittaslow as the ‘self-appointed’ voice of the community.
- In response to these concerns, DT expressed the view that the very fact that Cittaslow Linlithgow would be coming into such a structure without any preconceived ideas or historical ‘baggage’ , in terms of its relationship either with public agencies or other community groups, should be seen as a strength rather than a weakness; JH, in supporting this view, stressed the ‘natural fit’ between the generic objectives of the Cittaslow movement, as spelt out in the 6 categories of assessment criteria, and the specific objectives of the individual existing community groups working in the fields of heritage management, tourism development, cultural awareness, environmental management and enhancement etc, which would effectively form the ‘constituency’ for Cittaslow Linlithgow in its ‘umbrella’ role.
- DT advised the Group that in the period since the SUN meeting, in developing the proposed structure for the Action Group, he and JH had taken the opportunity to meet with WLC officials, and with representatives of a number of existing community organisations within Linlithgow, and had been reassured by the breadth and depth of support for the proposal, including the prospective role of Cittaslow Linlithgow.
- In conclusion, DT re-iterated his view that the Action Group proposal presented a major opportunity for the Linlithgow community as a whole to take more direct control over its long term development strategy, and for Cittaslow Linlithgow specifically to position itself as a key player in that process. He accepted that there was a need for further persuasion, given the valid concerns expressed by colleagues, and undertook to revise/review the presentation to address these issues. He did however point out to colleagues that since achieving Cittaslow status 6 months ago , any momentum has been dependent on the sustained efforts of a dwindling number of Steering Group participants, with no breadth of support established. By pursuing the Action Group proposal he and JH believe that Cittaslow Linlithgow could attract ‘new blood’ of committed organisation representatives, who could bring added momentum, new ideas etc to the benefit of their own organisations, Cittaslow Linlithgow, and of the town as a whole- is there any alternative ‘direction of travel’ on the table?
At that point, with this challenging question fresh in people’s minds, the Chair attempted to summarise some of the key issues arising from the discussion as set out above; he expressed the view that while there are clearly divergent views on the way forward for Cittaslow Linlithgow, and that nobody disputes the benefits of a co-ordinated community voice on behalf of Linlithgow, the credibility of the group taking on any such co-ordination role must be well established, if it is to have the sustained support and backing of the community.
Cognisance must also be taken of the relationship between any Action Group initiative and the existing statutory development plan, and of the need, if Cittaslow Linlithgow were in due course, to take on the umbrella role, to make sure that it was sufficiently resourced to ensure the delivery of an effective service. In the light of the genuine reservations expressed in the course of the discussion a number of issues require to be addressed.
DT/JH undertook to revisit their presentation of the proposal specifically to address the issues raised; at the same time, in order that a degree of clarity/agreement can be reached regarding Cittaslow Linlithgow’s own objectives, KR undertook to co-ordinate the identification by all Steering Group members, from the original assessment criteria document, of what they see as the key priority objectives to be addressed by Cittaslow Linlithgow, the outcome of which will be considered at the next meeting. Action: DT/JH; KR;All
The Chair thanked TK for making time to attend, and all Steering Group members for their input, and closed the meeting at 9.25pm
Date of Next Meeting: Tuesday 16 December (Time/Venue to be confirmed depending on availability)