WARNING - By their nature, text files cannot include scanned images and tables. 
The process of converting documents to text only, can cause formatting changes and 
misinterpretation of the contents can sometimes result. Wherever possible you 
should refer to the pdf version of this document.


CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY 
FINANCE COMMITTEE 
MINUTES 20/10/06 

MINUTES of MEETING of the 
FINANCE COMMITTEE of 


THE CAIRNGORMS NATIONAL PARK AUTHORITY 
held at the CNPA Offices, Grantown 
on 20 October 2006 


Present: 

Eleanor Mackintosh (Chair) Bruce Luffman 
David Selfridge 


In Attendance: 

David Green, CNPA Convener 
Jane Hope, Chief Executive 
Denby Pettitt, Finance Manager 
David Bale, Head of Natural Heritage (part-meeting) 


Apologies: 

Apologies were received from David Selfridge and Gregor Rimell. David Cameron was also 
unable to be in attendance. 


Welcome 

1. The Chairperson welcomed all present to the meeting, and noted apologies as set out 
above. 

2. As there were only two members of the Finance Committee in attendance, there was 
not a quorum (3 members required). It was decided to discuss the papers that had 
been circulated but recognising the issues would need to be considered by the next 
quorate meeting of the Finance Committee. Paper 1 was for discussion, Paper 2 was a 
decision paper and there was an Expenditure Justification Form (EJF) that had been 
circulated to members earlier in the week for decision under AOCB. 

3. Any decision on Paper 2 and the EJF was deferred until the next meeting of the 
Finance Committee. 


Minutes of Previous Meeting 

4. The minutes of the previous meeting, of 8 September 2006, were approved without 
amendment. 


Matters Arising 

5. None. 


Outturn for the six months to September 2006 including Update on Q2 
Operational Plan Review (Paper 1) 

6. Denby Pettitt presented this paper and drew members attention to the underspend of 
£470,000 for the first six months compared with the initial budget the Committee 
approved in May, the underspend consisted of Core spend (£66,000) and Operational 
Plan spend (£404,000) although the majority of the Operational Plan underspend was 
caused by projects or grant retentions that would be settled within the current year. 

7. In discussion the following points were made: 

a) Management Team were examining ways that the projected underspend could be 
utilised by new projects to benefit the Park and communities. Management Team 
had requested that a further meeting be held on November 14 in order to keep 
track of the situation. The outcome of this meeting will be reported to Committee 
members as part of the normal monthly update incorporating the October results. 

b) Core spend was generally kept close to budget and as the organisation was now 
three years old it was not surprising that there would be some staff turnover 
reducing our expenditure as posts were vacant. Some of the posts were currently 
held vacant as the organisation’s future staffing needs were assessed as part of 
the Park Plan process and in the meantime there was capacity in the budget to 
use temporary help. 

c) The meeting was told that the take-up of the Integrated Grants Programme (IGP) 
had, as reported to previous Board meetings, been less than expected. Members 
asked if more active promotion of the IGP had been needed or if the vacant 
Programme Manager’s post had adversely affected take up. Denby Pettitt 
reported that management of the IGP had now been assumed by the LEADER+ 
group and he did not feel that management of the programme had suffered in the 
month since Dicken left as we had used the opportunity to have a detailed review 
of grants with Product Champions before passing the project over to LEADER+. 

d) Members said it was disappointing that the message was given out that the 
grants programme was over-subscribed when we were reporting an overall 
underspend of resources. Denby Pettitt explained that IGP had suffered in the 
past from delays in communities claiming funds once the activity had been 
completed, this delay meant that much of the 2006/07 IGP was being used to 
meet commitments the programme had agreed to in 2005/06. As a result of this it 
was natural for the programme to be reluctant to accept new applications. 

e) A Board paper will be presented to the Board in November looking at the future 
of grant schemes across the Park and whether the grants scheme can be 
expanded to involve other organisations as well as be more proactive about 
direct spend. The point was made that grants were welcomed by the community 
who favoured events or a days activity where a small amount of grant money 
from the Park could have an immense benefit. 


Ratification of Previously Approved Expenditure Proposals and Approval of Expenditure 
Previously Presented to the CNPA Board (Paper 2) 

8. Denby Pettitt presented the paper which sought formal approval of pre-arrival signage 
expenditure which had previously been agreed by the Finance Committee Convener, 
CNPA Chief Executive and Head of Corporate Services. 

9. This was the first case of expenditure between £10,000 and £24,999 being approved 
under the new two-tier approval process agreed at the last meeting. Denby Pettitt 
explained that since such expenditure was being approved outwith the quarterly 
Committee meetings we would continue the practice of summarising the expenditure 
approved in this manner in the next set of Finance Committee papers in order that the 
Committee and Board members were kept informed. 

10. Formal approval of this was deferred until the Finance Committee had a quorum. 

11. Approval of the financial consequences of the earlier Board decision regarding the 
Cairngorms LBAP project were also deferred until a quorum was present. 

12. Members agreed with para. 7 of the paper that said in future CNPA officers would 
ensure that future commitments are identified earlier in the commitment process in 
order that a decision on financial affordability is made before project approval is 
sought from the CNPA Board. The Board also need to know if any future expenditure 
is affordable. 


AOCB 

13. An Expenditure Justification Form (EJF) had been e-mailed to Committee members 
earlier in the week regarding expenditure of £46,000 over three years on a Farm 
Business Viability project. The overall project consisted of two separate but 
complementary projects: 

• Planning to Succeed; and 
• Cairngorms Monitor Farm 

14. After a discussion among Members, David Bale whose Group would be monitoring 
the project joined the meeting to answer Member’s questions. 

15. In discussion the following points were made: 

a) The EJF stated that farmers are supportive of the proposal but Members had not 
heard anything, other farmers they had contacted were not aware of the project 
and the ILM Forum had not been consulted. Although it was generally seen as a 
good idea there was concern that we get Value for Money if the Park were to 
part-fund the project. Bruce Luffman thought that, in theory, it was a brilliant 
idea and one that the Park Authority should be linked with. He had seen this 
operate on dairy farms but not in other sectors of farming and questioned how 
workable it was on the East side of the Park given the need for farmers to be open 
and share practices. 

b) David Bale said the project was a longstanding one that had been run 
successfully in other parts of Scotland and in the past had been well received, 
SEERAD were looking to roll it out to other areas. He confirmed that Planning to 
Succeed had operated previously with dairy farms in Dumfries and Galloway. 
One of the criteria of joining was to be open so it was self-selecting i.e. if farmers 
were not interested in being open they would not seek to participate in the 
project. The experience of Quality Meat Scotland in other areas was that the 
project generated interest even in areas not used to collaboration. The point was 
made that the farms between Tomintoul and Dinnet were generally not finishing 
farms and they would need to be approached in a certain way to join the project. 

c) If we committed money to the project then we would lose the ability to spend it 
on other projects so we had to be certain of the benefits and that we would 
receive Value for Money. David Bale felt that anecdotal evidence pointed to it 
being a good experience although Members felt that this was from other parts of 
the country. 

d) HIE were funding 100% of one group but only contributing 20% of the funding to 
the Group in the Park. David Bale replied that, for Planning to Succeed, there 
were benefits in having two groups to feed off each other and initially HIE were 
not going to contribute anything to the group in the Park so there had been some 
success in receiving funding of 20%. 

16. It was agreed that David Bale would investigate the potential take-up of farmers in the 
area and how this would be approached in the next 2-3 weeks and report back to 
Finance Committee. 


Date of Next Meeting 

17. To be held on 1 December 2006, 9:00 a.m, at the Lonach Hall, Strathdon.