Agenda and minutes

The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting of the Berwickshire Area Partnership and to Reston Village Hall.

Consider Minute of the Meeting held on 9 June 2022 for approval and signature by the Chairman.  (Copy attached.)

There had been circulated copies of the Minute of the Meeting held on 9 June 2022.  The Chair provided feedback which included a desire from attendees for there to be more community presentations and a greater diversity of people attending meetings.

DECISION

AGREED to approve the Minute of the Meeting held on 9 June 2022 for signature by the Chair.

Consider presentation from Anne McNeill, Berwickshire Place Making Working Group and A Heart for Duns.

1.1         The Chair invited Keith Dickinson, chair of the Berwickshire Place Making Working Group to update the Area Partnership on the activities of Place Making in Berwickshire.  Mr Dickinson reminded attendees that the aspiration of Place Making was to be community-led.  After the first working group meeting, a survey was sent to community groups and to community councils asking about the internet.  Initially, the Working Group prioritised support for communities and had since decided to change that approach to having an ‘open-door policy’ allowing opportunities for any grouping that wanted to be involved in Place Making.  Eleven expressions of interest in Place Making had been received and it was apparent that groups could be clustered where they originated from the same community.

1.2         During discussion of the update, Ms Amaral of BAVS advised that Prosperity Fund had funding available for interested communities and that BAVS were delivering three sessions for community engagement in locations throughout Berwickshire.  Ms Campbell of Coldstream Community Council advised that the Place Standard Tool was being used to develop Place Making work in Coldstream.  Mr Dickinson summarised the discussion by advising that there was a locality plan for Berwickshire and the aim of Place Making was to explore with communities what they believed to be important and that would be the beginning of developing a new community-led locality plan.

DECISION

NOTED the update.

Consider update from Carolyn Didcock, SBC Quality Improvement Officer.

1.1         The Chair introduced Carolyn Didcock, SBC Quality Improvement Officer, to deliver a presentation on Nurture in schools in the Scottish Borders.  Ms Didcock advised that Nurture could be summarised as a ‘firm but fair’ approach to managing behaviour of children in schools.  The process of introducing Nurture in SBC schools took around 18 months and started during the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown.  A Nurture steering group was established and drew information from other local authorities that used Nurture including Glasgow City Council, South Ayrshire Council, Fife Council and East Lothian Council.  Creativity was required for the rollout of Nurture so explainer videos were uploaded to the SBC YouTube account.

1.2         Ms Didcock summarised what the Nurture policy entailed and advised that the policy highlighted the importance of positive relationships with children from early years to S6 to equip children with suitable social, emotional and wellbeing skills.  Research had shown that Nurture helped school children to better at school and helped in reducing mental health problems in children.  The treatment of children through Nurture was not permissive and light touch, instead behavioural boundaries and expectations were clear and enforced.  However, Nurture encouraged listening and talking to children about their behaviour.

1.3         Ms Didcock advised that lockdown had seen an increase in distressed behaviour.  Behaviour of S1 children were found to be difficult to manage and that there had been a targeted approach to nurturing to manage this.  The roll out of Nurture throughout secondary schools had resulted in some data-evidenced improvements in children’s behaviour.  Ms Didcock assured that behaviours of children would have consequences but it was to be proportionate to the behaviour, and furthermore action could be taken including speaking to parents about the child’s behaviour and assessing why negative behaviour was happening in school.

DECISION

NOTED the update.

Consider presentation by Jennie Sutton, Community Development Facilitator, Cockburnspath and Cove.

The Chair invited Jennie Sutton, Community Development Facilitator for Cockburnspath and Cove to present on Place Making engagement activities that had taken place in the Cockburnspath and Cove community.  Ms Sutton advised that engagement had been affected by the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown and that creative and pragmatic thinking was required.  Ms Sutton presented materials used in community engagement including maps of Cockburnspath and Cove where residents were invited to place small flags on the map indicating ideas for community improvement, a tool which had been drawn from the Planning for Real toolkit.  This had been presented as an example of community engagement that had to cease due to the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.  A Cockburnspath resident who ran a digital mapping business volunteered to provide support and created a bespoke, interactive map platform called the Village Poll.  All residents from the age of 14 were invited to engage with the new platform which was compatible for mobile phone, tablet and laptop devices.  For those not IT-literate or in digital poverty, a mobile kiosk for all polls was available at the post office, and hard copy questionnaires were also available.  Village Poll was launched in May 2021 and concluded after four polls were ran covering leisure and tourism, transport, services and amenities, and crime and safety.  A further poll was run based on feedback and questions from the first three polls to demonstrate that the community was being listened to during the process.  The process developed a 100-page community action plan collated from quantitative and qualitative information.  Some elements of the community action plan had already happened including a new ATM for the community shop and a new, funded EV charger.  In response to questions from attendees, Ms Sutton advised that around 250 responses were received from approximately 400 households.  Volunteers helped to distribute hard-copies of the questionnaire to those that required them.

DECISION

NOTED the update.

Consider presentation by Logan Inglis, Reston and Auchencrow Community Council.

1.1         The Chair introduced Logan Inglis to deliver a presentation on the Reston Community Larder.  Mr Inglis advised that the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown had affected people using shops and that elderly people were particularly vulnerable.  The Larder was formed in April 2020 and had been operating out of foyers and converted rooms before a purpose-built facility was built funded by grant awards which enabled the purchase of two fridges and one freezer.  The Larder recruited the support of a health and safety officer to ensure compliance with relevant regulations.  The resilience group was operated through the community council which helped to ensure the group was properly constituted, insured and followed a code of practice, also enabling the Larder to secure food hygiene and first aid training.  The Larder worked with Neighbourly, Fareshare, Fareshare-Go and Eildon Housing Association to secure food collections from Tesco, Aldi, Marks and Spencer and Morrisons.  The Larder operated with a clear ethos of preventing people going hungry and to prevent waste food going to landfill.  Food that could not be distributed was sent to compost by the Larder.  In its operation, the Larder found that it could engage with people in the community by having volunteers available to talk to people in the community when they visited.  This included signposting visitors to agencies like BAVS, Scottish Borders Council and Berwickshire Housing Association.  Using information provided by Larder users, it was assessed that in July 2021 there were 429 visitors feeding approximately 1200 people, and in June 2022 there were 368 people feeding approximately 1300 people.  Behaviours were assessed in that people were visiting the Larder more to cook meals after initially receiving items like cake, and there was further concern that the need for the Larder was not dissipating.

1.2         In response to questions from attendees, Mr Inglis advised that collections from supermarkets were changing due to changes in their practices such as differences in the way use-by and best before dates were being displayed.  With regards to community larders across Berwickshire working together, it was found that people were visiting several community larders and that there was a case where individuals weren’t visiting as they were no longer able to afford fuel for their car.  It was also found that people were attempting to travel to community larders of other towns to avoid stigma and embarrassment of having to collect food from the town they were based in.  Concern was expressed by the Larder on the impact of rising living costs and the volume of available food for collection.  Supper clubs had been raised as an idea for larders to support making their food more accessible in the community.

DECISION

NOTED the update.

An overview of community funding available in Berwickshire.  (Copy attached.)

There had been circulated copies of the Berwickshire Funding Table which showed available funding for funds in the Berwickshire area.  The Neighbourhood Support Fund began with £99,997.19 for 2022-23.  The Funding Table showed that if all applications to the Neighbourhood Support Fund at the meeting were successful then there would be funds of £14,341.55 remaining.  The Community Co-ordinator advised that the Welfare Fund contained funds of £8,180.76 which could be used to alleviate the impact of fuel poverty.

DECISION

NOTED the update.

Consider presentation of funding recommendations by the Berwickshire Assessment Panel Chair for the following Neighbourhood Support Fund applications:

(a)          BAVS;

(b)          Border Links Ltd;

(c)           Birgham Play Equipment;

(d)          Berwickshire Marine Reserve;

(e)          Sea the Change;

(f)            Berwickshire Swap;

(g)          Ayton Heritage;

(h)          Eat Sleep Ride;

(i)            Gordon Village Hall;

(j)            Chirnside Development Group;

(k)           Roxburgh & Berwickshire CAB;

(l)            Interest Link Borders;

(m)         Chirnside Football Club;

(n)          Ayton Gardening Society;

(o)          Frangipane Bakery;

(p)          Allanbank Art;

(q)          Connect Berwickshire Youth Project;

(r)           Abundant Borders.

(To follow.)

1.1         There had been circulated copies of a report by the Berwickshire Neighbourhood Support Fund Assessment Panel which detailed recommendations for 18 applications for funding.  The Chair invited Keith Dickinson, chair of the Assessment Panel, to present the report. Mr Dickinson advised attendees that the decision that the Area Partnership should make was to content itself that the fund assessment process was rigorous.  The Assessment Panel recruited two new members; Kathy Huffman and Jim Hettrick, and there were now two vacancies.  Mr Dickinson advised that he felt that the Assessment Panel having delegated powers to grant awards would make the funding process quicker, and that he wished to publish dates of the application process a year in advance with three yearly rounds of funding, and to be able to grant funding within two weeks instead of six weeks.  The Berwickshire Area Partnership recommendation from the meeting held on 4 March 2021 that sub-committee of the Berwickshire Area Partnership with delegated powers to grant awards was to go to Scottish Borders Council for approval.  Mr Dickinson advised that there should be a distinction made on members having a declared interest and having a conflict of interest in an application for funding.  Mr Dickinson summarised the blind marking process of the Assessment Panel.

1.2         In response to a question from Mr Inglis on the summary of decisions made by the Assessment Panel where it was stated that more information was required however not enough information was provided as to why applications were recommended for rejection, Mr Dickinson reiterated that the Berwickshire Area Partnership agreed that the Assessment Panel was to make recommendations and it was for the Berwickshire Area Partnership to approve the process in which the recommendations were made.  The Chair further advised that further detail could not be provided in the document so as to remain GDPR compliant and that a further update would be brought to the next meeting.  Mr Dickinson advised any applicant would be welcome to request further feedback from the panel on its recommendations.

DECISION

AGREED to:

(a)       Approve the recommendations for awards detailed in Appendix 1 of the report; and,

(b)       Provide further detail on the assessment panel recommendation with regards to the application from Ayton Heritage at the next meeting of the Berwickshire Area Partnership.

The Chair advised that additional information was included in the agenda pack which contained information on current consultations and links to useful information and highlighted information on Pingo and the NHS Borders Money Worries application.

DECISION

NOTED the update.

Next meeting: 1 December 2022, agenda issued 17 November 2022.

The Chair advised that the next meeting of the Berwickshire Area Partnership was on 1 December 2022 and the agenda would be issued on 17 November 2022.

1.1         NHS updates
A request was received for the NHS to attend the next meeting of the Berwickshire Area Partnership and for information to be heard on NHS dentist availability in Berwickshire.

1.2         BAVS

Ms Amaral advised attendees of opportunities to with regards to the Children, Young People, Families and Adult Learning Third Sector Fund and with support delivered through BAVS for funding applications writing.

1.3   Cost of energy

In response to a question from Mr Pearson about how the Berwickshire Area Partnership could address the rising cost of energy and the possibility of warm banks, the Community Co-ordinator advised that a community partners meeting could be convened to discuss the issue.

The Chair requested that attendees submit their thoughts on the meeting so that their views could be considered for future meetings.