Glencairn Community Council – Current Reports

Public Consultation Meeting Windfarm Allocation Issues

Monday 26th November 7.30pm

It should be noted that attendance at this meeting was not large. However those who were there were a diverse group and discussion was wide-ranging and lively.


  • To seek and identify areas of consensus
  • To make sure that all points of view were noted
  • To identify problems in the process, current and potential
  • To identify areas of disagreement
  • To identify current good practice
  • To propose good practice for the future


  • Structured group discussions making notes on a flip chart.
  • Change group members to further discussions.
  • Area for individual comments using post-its.


Current Good Practice

Open meetings for both allocation and pre-allocation process

Pre-allocation meetings to verify applications

Post allocation report in the gazette for all recipients

Proven track record in allocation of funds

The process evolves if required

Bodies applying to fund are constituted and have bank accounts

Most members of the Community Council are up to speed with procedures

There are application forms to complete and guidelines go out with applications

A feed back form is issued

No retrospective applications are accepted

Application is restricted to the parish.

There was strong agreement on these issues in the groups.

Legacy Fund

There should be a legacy fund

Differences of opinion as to how much should go to the legacy fund ranging from 30% to 50% to 75% to 100% To 40% to legacy fund

Review policy every 3 years but 100% Community Council support required on policy change

No proper criteria – definition

For a legacy fund we need to identify what is a “legacy”

(ie a project already exists in community – to make it sustainable)


Current funds already contribute to legacy projects (eg Playcare with a knock on effect on the school)

It should have a separate bank account

The funds should be ring-fenced

Invest – do not spend (10 years?)

These points were made in this section but properly belong in good practice section

No missing documentation should be accepted after deadline

Incomplete applications should be returned for resubmission at next term

Feedback required for further applications

Good practice for the future

Open transparency

Declare conflict of interest

Communication and involvement in the community by the community


All community councillors should be up to speed with procedures

Definition of legacy fund

Clear criteria

Review the legacy fund every 3 years

Feedback forms are closely monitored and implemented (ie receipts etc)

Businesses are not directly supported for personal gain

Make sure whole community benefits

Regular and on-going analysis of funds

Plan for when no funds are coming in

Get up to date with agreement with SPR

Applications should have a constitution

Ease of access/user friendly/meeting environment/application should speak for itself/applications should be introduced by community council

Ringfence funds for annual projects eg evergreen requirements, Christmas party

No missing documentation should be accepted after deadline

Incomplete applications should be returned for resubmission at next term

Feedback required for further applications

Further points from post-its


Public notifications of meetings

We need a wider range of members of the community


Recommended Good Practice






General Points

Eco-home for elderly and respite care with strong links to pre-school

Build up the legacy fund to have a major legacy project (ie care home for elderly)

Combining resources and expertise


Clear criteria for a legacy fund

50% of funds for the legacy fund

Legacy fund to be issued every 3 years

Need to build better relations with community to encourage attendance at meetings

Major Issues arising

There is strong consensus that the process should be and is transparent in terms of allocation and reporting

There is consensus that there should be a legacy fund.

There is no consensus on its definition, quantification or operation.

It is probably impossible to meet everyone’s wishes in this area.

We need to establish clear criteria and procedures in this area

Collaboration and communication were important issues arising

We have already identified some areas of communication for development, which we can begin to take forward.

  • An easily accessible website which is regularly updated with all minutes, agendas and other information of public interest.
  • More use of the gazette, which reaches every household

We need to see how we can work effectively in collaboration with other organisations such as Moniaive Initiative to try to deliver some of the legacy projects, which people aspire to

There was fairly strong feeling that the process of application was a bit daunting and could be made more user-friendly.

We need to revisit the process. Is it necessary to have the applicant present their own case. Can the application speak for itself? Could a community councillor do that if the applicant does not wish to speak? Could all queries be addressed in advance privately? Are there issues of transparency.