MINUTE OF NALAG PROJECT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE (PAC) THURSDAY 14 JUNE 2018 AT AM COUNCIL OFFICES, ELLON

Transcription

1 MINUTE OF NALAG PROJECT ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE (PAC) THURSDAY 14 JUNE 2018 AT AM COUNCIL OFFICES, ELLON Present Martin Auld David Hekelaar John Loder (Chair) David McCubbin Eleanor Morris Officers in Attendance Flick Millar Anne MacLennan Apologies Gina Ford Lorna Paterson Martin Brebner Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Scotland (private) Formartine Community Councils (private) Formartine Partnership (private) Visit Aberdeenshire (private) Udny Community Trust (private) European Programmes Co-ordinator (North) European Programmes Claims Officer (North) Scottish Enterprise (public) National Farmers Union Scotland (private) Team Manager European Programmes & Policy 1. Welcome and Apologies John Loder, Chairman, welcomed those present. Apologies were noted as above. 2. Declarations of Interest David McCubbin declared an interest in project number 01/P00020 Project Manager for the NE Rural Food and Drink Tourism Programme. Although Visit Aberdeenshire is a partner in this project, David has not been involved directly with the application. It was agreed that David will be able to take part in the discussion but will not score the project. 3. Minutes of Last PAC Meeting 3.1 The minute of the PAC meeting of 27 February 2018, which was formally approved at the LAG meeting on 22 March 2018, was noted. 4. Project Applications /P00020 Straw Pellet Plant The PAC queried the lease document which details a ten year lease at zero cost. However, it appears from the lease that the rent is reviewable after one 1

2 year and on a three yearly basis thereafter. The applicant will be asked to provide further clarification about this. The PAC discussed the supply of straw with particular reference to the type of straw to be used and the supply line. The PAC questioned whether barley straw could be used as an alternative. It appears that most wheat is grown in the Angus area and the PAC expressed concerns about the distance the material will be transported and the resulting impact on the carbon element of the business model. The applicant will be asked to provide clarification about what type of straw will be used and where it will come from. The PAC questioned whether LEADER can fund a deposit. The Co-ordinator confirmed that a deposit is in fact eligible for LEADER grant. The PAC questioned the projected figures as presented in the cash flow document. Cost estimates for the plant running costs appear to be low. The estimates for the cost of maintenance and repairs at 200 per annum were queried. It may be that this is the cost of the maintenance contract but this is unclear from information provided. Marketing will also be an important part of this project and again, the marketing budget appears low. There are no costs included for office running costs or an IT system. The applicant will be asked to provide further clarification about whether these costs are realistic. A statement to illustrate what these costs are based on will be sufficient. The PAC also highlighted some typing errors in the figures detailed in the cash flow in the business plan. The applicant will be asked to re-visit the financials and make corrections where there are missing decimal points in the figures. The PAC questioned whether the company is already carrying out this work. However, the Co-ordinator confirmed that although the company is currently trading in pellets, this project is to move into production and therefore is eligible for LEADER grant. The PAC considered equal opportunities to be weak. A sustainability model does not currently exist. Although the applicant does not employ staff at the moment and the equal opportunities statement reflects the current situation, an equalities policy should be in place to ensure equal opportunities will be addressed in future. The PAC agreed that the narrative about sustainability is confusing for applicants as it is unclear whether it refers to financial or environmental sustainability. Applicants rarely address both. The PAC was generally supportive of the project and will be prepared to recommend for approval to the LAG if the above questions are answered by the applicant. Clarification required about the ten year lease document, with specific regard to the rent review after one year and on a three yearly basis thereafter. 2

3 Further details required about the supply of straw, for example, what type of straw will be used and where will it come from. Typing errors in the cash flow in the business plan to be addressed. Applicant to revisit the working behind some of the figures in the projected cash flow which appear to be low. In particular the maintenance and repair costs, the marketing budget and the lack of any office costs or IT system in the budget. The equal opportunities argument was considered to be weak. Applicant to ensure that equal opportunities will be addressed and a policy will be in place to ensure that equal opportunities will be covered in the future /P00023 Portsoy Hall Church Renovation and Development The PAC questioned what will happen to the existing church building. From information supplied it appears that worship will be moved from the existing Church into the new community facility. LEADER will be funding the conversion of the new building into a workable community hall but the PAC was still unclear about whether the new facility will also be used as the Church. If the proposal is to then sell the existing Church building, the PAC would welcome clarification about whether the proceeds from the sale can be allocated to this project or whether they will go directly to the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland is only making a very small contribution towards the project in terms of match funding. The bulk of match funding is coming from the applicant, Portsoy Church. The Co-ordinator confirmed that HLF funding has now been secured. The PAC raised questions about equal opportunities for using the new facility. It could be added as a condition of grant that the premises must be available for use by all other users, including other religions. The PAC would welcome clarification about whether or not the building, or some areas of the building are to be consecrated and whether other faiths would be allowed to use any unconsecrated areas for worship. Although the project could be seen to have limited innovation, the PAC considered the project to have the potential for good inter-generational legacy. Retaining an old building and making it accessible helps towards community belonging. Confirmation about what will happen to the old or current church building. If it is to be sold, where will the proceeds go and could they be allocated to this project? Which areas of the building are to be consecrated? 3

4 Confirmation about whether other faiths will be allowed to use the unconsecrated areas of the building for worship /P00024 Vanilla Ink: The Smiddy The PAC like this project in principle and welcomed the prospect of a derelict old building being brought back into use. The project will fit within the wider context of the arts and cultural theme. The applicant is applying for 100% intervention rate on items which are reasonable to recover and can be made compliant for LEADER. It appears to have proved difficult for the applicant to obtain quotes for some of the larger items of machinery. Although the LAG has a derogation to be able to accept a single quote where necessary, the applicant decided to exclude these items from the LEADER application. The match funding letter form Aberdeenshire Council is not yet available and the PAC would like to have sight of this letter in order to confirm that project costs which are in-eligible for LEADER will be covered by another funder. The PAC raised the question of environmental sustainability because sustainability as detailed in the application is entirely economic. The PAC would welcome a statement from the applicant to explain any steps taken to ensure that energy will be used in the most efficient manner and that the facility will be run in an environmentally friendly way with regard to product shipping, water use, waste disposal etc. The PAC was happy to recommend this application to the LAG for approval subject to satisfactory responses to the issues raised. Confirmation in the form of a letter form the other match funder, that project costs which are ineligible for LEADER will be covered. In order to address the issue of environmental sustainability, the applicant will be asked to provide a statement to show that steps have been taken in the design of the project to ensure that the running of the facility will be as environmentally friendly as possible. With specific reference to energy use, product shipping, water use, waste disposal etc /P00029 Project Manager for the NE Rural Food and Drink Tourism Programme 4

5 DOI David McCubbin, Visit Aberdeenshire. This is a co-operation project between North Aberdeenshire, South Aberdeenshire, Moray and Cairngorms. One project manager will be employed to cover all four LAG areas. This application is 100% funding from LEADER with the project costs being split between LAGs as follows: 42% North, 36% South, 17% Moray and 5% Cairngorms. Although North is the lead LAG, all other LAGs must approve their own proportion of funding towards the project and there is a requirement for each LAG to score the project. The PAC was of the understanding that the applicant, Opportunity North East (ONE) would be using private investor s money rather than accessing public funding for projects. ONE is a wealthy organisation and the PAC questioned the need for grant, especially as the grant request is 100% intervention rate from LEADER. Clarification was sought as to why other funders have not been included as match funding. The Co-ordinator explained that the LEADER contribution will go towards the full amount of the salary and on-costs for the Project Manager. It was considered to be challenging for the applicant to provide evidence of project running costs and therefore ONE will provide an equivalent amount of working budget to cover revenue items such as events, publicity, courses etc. The PAC considered it to be a somewhat onerous task to expect the post holder to cover such a large geographical area in the eighteen month project period and expressed concerns that there may be a potential for limited legacy at the end of this period. However, the post holder will be employed to get this project up and running and it was hoped that between ONE and Visit Aberdeenshire, there will be funding available to extend the post to promote the region beyond the end of the LEADER project period. Although expected outcomes for the five year horizon have been provided, the PAC would like the outputs to be specific to the 18 month LEADER project and would welcome clarification about what is expected to be achieved by the end of this project implementation period. An operational and delivery timeline would prove to be helpful. The PAC considered the applicant s consideration of environmental sustainability to be fairly weak. The PAC would welcome a statement for a five year vision to explain how the post holder will promote environmental sustainability around business support and contribute towards national targets for carbon reduction, energy use and biodiversity strategies. The Business Reference Number is still to be approved for this project. The PAC was generally supportive of the project which will support a large number of small businesses and was happy to recommend this application to the LAG for approval subject to satisfactory responses to the issues raised. 5

6 Applicant to specify the expected results of the eighteen month LEADER project and clarify what is expected to have been achieved by the end of this project implementation period. Applicant to provide a statement or policy for the full five years of the project to explain how the post holder will promote environmental sustainability around business support, and contribute towards national targets around carbon reduction, energy use, and biodiversity strategies. 5. AOCB 5.1 The Co-ordinator updated the PAC on the status of other applications which are currently on LARCs. Applications from Beaton Hall and Cobblehouse Country Cabins did not pass technical checks. These applications will hopefully come forward to the next round. Forrester s Cottage Restoration Project applicant was unable to get the tender issued in time. North East Community Ranger and Going Undercover have both been withdrawn and will be removed from the LARCs system. 5.2 The PAC questioned whether NALAG funding is on track to being fully committed by the end of the programme period or whether there will be a risk of having to hand some of the money back. The Co-ordinator confirmed that if everything in the pipeline comes forward as expected, then the funding will be fully committed. However, it can be like working with shifting sands. 5.3 The Co-ordinator reminded the PAC about the North commissioned projects which are currently being worked up by Project Officer, Dan Shaw. Dan will give an update about these at the LAG meeting. Commissioned projects being worked on are: E-bikes project on the Formartine/Buchan Way. Project to work with migrant communities. E-health project. 6. Date and Time of Next Meeting The next LAG meeting will take place on Thursday 5 July at am. The next PAC meeting is scheduled for Thursday, 11 October at am. Minute Taker - Anne MacLennan European Programmes Claims Officer 6