Clydebank PFN Board 1 Aug 2025 Papers
West Dunbartonshire Council · 1 August 2025
Back to Clydebank Pride in Place Board — 1 August 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Some pages contain no extractable text. They may be blank, graphics or scanned pages. OCR has not been applied.
Page 1
Clydebank Plan for Neighbourhoods Fund 1 Clydebank Neighbourhood Board Friday 1 August 2025 1:30pm Clydebank Housing Association Agenda: Lead 1. Welcome By Chair Liz Connolly 2. Previous minutes and actions All 3. Review of Workshop report Liz/Davina a. Agree the list of interventions b. Agree on any new interventions c. Alignment with Scottish Government’s Regeneration Strategy d. Community engagement e. Development and submission of Regeneration Plan f. Plan submission question 4. Recruitment of Project Resource Liz Connolly 5. Board membership and governance Liz Connolly 6. Finance summary and project resource Liz Connolly 7. Marketing and communications Sandie Scott 8. Any Other Business Liz Connolly 9. Dates of next meetings – (tbc) Suggested: 5th September, 3 October, 31 October, 30 January.
Page 2
1 Clydebank Neighbourhood Board Meeting 4 April 2025 West Scotland College Item : Note of previous meeting Clydebank Neighbourhood Board 4 April 2025 9.30 am Cunard Suite, West College Scotland Members Attending Liz Connolly Principal and CE, West College Scotland (Chair) Fiona McInnes Chief Executive, Clydebank Co-op Society Alan Douglas Chief Officer Regulatory & Regeneration, WDC Selina Ross West Dunbartonshire CVS June Todd Community Activist Clare Steel WDC Elected Member Gail MacFarlane Chief Officer, Roads & Neighbourhoods, WDC Michelle Lynn Asset Manager, WDC Simon Shanks Police Scotland Lawrence O’Neill WDC Elected Member Andrew Forrester Clyde Shopping Centre Peter Hessett Chief Executive, WDC Douglas McAllister Member of Parliament Carol Alderson Finance Manager, WDC Christine McGuinness Golden Jubilee Hospital Apologies Laurence Slavin Chief Officer Resources, WDC Other attendees Elaine Troup Economic Development Manager, WDC Brian McColgan Business Support Officer, WDC
Page 3
2 1. Welcome by Chair Action Liz Connolly (LC) welcomed everyone to the meeting and informed the Board that Lynette Lees of Clydebank Housing Association has resigned from the Board due to other commitments. LC asked the Board, that due to the importance of the issues around housing if they felt that a representative from the Housing sector should be recruited to replace Lynette. This was agreed. LC also welcomed Simon Shanks of Police Scotland, replacing Kirsten McLatchie who has moved to a new position with Police Scotland. Board/LC 2. Note of previous meeting The note of the previous meeting was agreed as accurate. In terms of actions recorded in the note: Board Documents/Sharepoint/CMIS – There was discussion around the availability of Board papers. The new regulations around transparency for the Neighbourhood Fund require papers to be made available on the Council’s website. Peter Hessett (PH) asked if the papers for this meeting were available on the Council’s CMIS site. Brian McColgan (BMcC) said they weren’t but that the Board is listed on the CMIS site. PH said that papers should be on CMIS subject to any confidentiality issues. Declarations of Interest – LC asked if Alan Douglas (AD) had received all Declartions of Interests from Board members. AD said he hadn’t as yet and reminded members to submit these to him. Schedule of Meetings – LC said that a Schedule of Meeting dates will be drawn up. BMcC Board/AD LC 3 Plan for Neighbourhoods – New Guidance Summary LC welcomed Elaine Troup (ET) who has succeeded Gillian McNamara as Economic Development Manager for the Council and invited ET to speak to this item. ET outlined the changes. Most notable were: Change of Name and Focus – The Plan for Towns is now the Plan for Neighbourhoods. There appears to be more of a focus on communities rather than towns, but a town can still be focus of activity. Eligible Projects/Interventions – There is a longer list of pre-approved interventions available to Neighbourhoods. Additions include in the areas
Page 4
3 of addressing homelessness and school based projects for young people. A full list of interventions was included in the paper for this item and is available at Plan for Neighbourhoods: pre-approved interventions - GOV.UK Terminology – There are changes to the terminology used, essentially swapping “Town” for Neighbourhood”. The original 10 Year Plan is now to be known as the “Regeneration Plan”. Funding – In terms of funding available the total amount is unchanged at £20m over 10 years. This is split 75/25 Capital /Revenue. Capital funding will not be made available until the year 2026, however an additional £250k of revenue funding is available in this financial year. ET said that discussion is required around how this additional funding should be used. The profile of capital funding has changed somewhat with £367k available in the first year of Capital funding and £1.6m in subsequent years. Boundary and Board Membership – The Board has to confirm it is happy with the previously approved boundary for the Neighbourhood and has to confirm its membership by April 22nd. Summary – ET summarised the changes as amounting to an expansion in the types of projects that the Board can introduce and asked that Board members consider the new list of interventions. LC thanked ET and opened discussion on the new guidance. Board 4 New Guidance Implementation Discussion followed. Douglas McAllister (DMcA) gave a bit of background to the changes from the government point of view. He had met with the relevant Minister and their discussions were around the expansion of the Plan for Neighbourhood with more places eligible and more funding being made available, whilst ensuring that Clydebank was still eligible and the work done by the Board previously was still valid. The Minister acknowledged the progress the Board had made as the Town Fund Board and that the work to date was still in line with the new policy. LC thanked DMcA for this update. LC noted that while the Board should consider the new interventions open to it there was no need to do this immediately and invited comments. Gail McFarlane (GMcF) asked about the timescales for the Board’s plans, were they live now or would they commence in 2026/27? ET said that the 3 year plan is now a 4 year plan. Some works can be undertaken just now, e.g. preparatory/feasibility type works and more community engagement can also be carried out.
Page 5
4 PH asked if any underspends from current revenues allocations can be carried forward. ET said that she believed underspends could be carried forward. LC said that the Board should probably do more to publicise the plans. Clare Steel (CS) raised the issue of the perception that Council budget cuts and savings could conflict with the availability of Neighborhood Fund resources. CS said that the Board needs to differentiate between Council resources and Neighbourhood Fund resources and emphasise that the Nieghbourhood Fund is not the Council. LC acknowledged this point and the importance of differentiating between the two resources. AD commented that there is a danger that the Neighbourhood Fund could be seen as competing with other stakeholders activities, e.g. in housing, hence it was important to have the Housing sector represented on the Board. LC agreed. Fiona McInnes (FMcI) gave the example of impacts to CCTV and lighting provision being affected by Council savings options, again raising a possible perceived conflict. June Todd (JT) also highlighted the need to differentiate between Council and Neighbourhood Fund and to make clear the Council doesn’t control the Neighbourhood Funds. LC acknowledged this and reminded the Board that WDC is the accountable body for the funding. JT suggested making more use of local media to publicise and differentiate the work of the Neighbourhood Board. LC acknowledged this point and said that the Communications Plan would follow later in the meeting. GMcF noted the importance of the concept of additionality attaching to the work of the Neighbourhood Fund, i.e. that any interventions would not happen without the Neighbourhood Fund resources. LC acknowledged this and also said that it was important for the Neighbourhood Fund to be seen to create a legacy. DMcA asked what is the overall aim of the Board? Is it to achieve a lot of small hits or a big hit and highlighted the impact that a big project could have. PH said that the Board had previously focussed on the 3 Year Plan but now had the opportunity to revisit this and perhaps look at the longer term or bigger impact projects. LC agreed with this and said that it was for the Board and local communities through consultation/engagement to decide on the types of project to be delivered. GMcF asked if there was an expectation that a certain amount of funding be allocated to the 4 Year Plan. ET said there was no set figure, this is up to the Board to decide.
Page 6
5 AD raised the profiling of the funding and that it didn’t lend itself to a big project, i.e. £xm per year for 10 years, but that there might be ways to manage the profiled funding to achieve either a big project or a series of smaller projects. LC summarised the discussion by saying that the Board should reflect on the new intervention list and its previous plans to identify any amendments. If this seemed reasonable the Plans would be recirculated to members and workshop sessions could be arranged to consider this. Andrew Forrester (AF) agreed that it would be good to review the Plans in light of the new interventions. ET asked if the proposal was to look at both the 3 year and 10 year plans. LC said it is important to look at both. Actions – WDC staff to arrange workshop sessions to review plans. Board WDC 5 Finance Summary and Project Resource ET ran through the attached financial summary. It was noted that the bulk of spend to date has been on WDC staff costs. LC said that she had met recently with the Chairs from the other Neighbourhood Boards and there were differing approaches being taken to the use of the resource available to manage/administer the work of the Board. Should the Board continue with the current format or should it employ an officer to oversee the Fund? Discussion followed. Laurence O’Neill (LON) said that it might be a good idea to employ a dedicated officer but that there were issues attached to this, e.g. possible recruitment difficulties, identifying an individual with the necessary skills, knowledge and experience, the duration of contract that could be offered and who would be the actual employer of the individual. There was general agreement around these issue. AF raised the possibility of using a consultancy for this role. LC acknowledged that this could be an option and that while spend on consultancy is eligible guidance discourages the use of consultancy and prefers capacity building. It was agreed that these issues could be included in the proposed review/development workshops, which will be arranged for some point after Easter. LON pointed out a discrepancy in the spend to date. This was acknowledged. WDC 6 Board Membership and Governance LC informed that Board that she is to retire from her current post in the summer but would be willing to remain as Chair of the Board. LC
Page 7
6 suggested that a Vice Chair should be appointed and that the Board should consider if it needs to be strengthened. The Board expressed their gratitude to LC for her work to date and there was support for LC to retain the position of Chair. In terms of the composition and possible strengthening of the Board there was discussion around youth representation and continued representation for West College Scotland. The contributions made by existing youth representatives, i.e. Callum Fergie of the Youth Council and Lucy McGovern of WDC was acknowledged. The importance of continuing representation from the Housing sector was raised again. LON asked if there is a Registered Social Landlord forum in the area and that perhaps they could be approached to provide a representative for the Board. AD said he was unaware of a formal forum. LC suggested contacting Lynette Lees of Clydebank Housing Association for input. JT asked if the Board should include representation from disability groups? This was agreed. PH said that WDC had contacts in this area and would progress this. LC asked any Board members interested in becoming Vice Chair to get in touch with her. LC WDC Board 7 Marketing and Communications LC stressed the importance of good communications and introduced this item. Sandie Scott (SS), who has agreed to lead on Communications, was unable to attend the meeting. Christine Mc Guiness (CMcG) Communications Manager, Golden Jubilee hospital, had been involved in the Communications sub-group and spoke to the draft Communications Plan. CMcG highlighted that the plan had been drawn up prior to the new guidance. Key points made included: Dedicated Neighbourhood Fund website to be created. No separate social media accounts to be created for the Neighbourhood Fund, but partners/stakeholders should use their own social media channels to highlight the work of the Fund. Make use of local media outlets.
Page 8
7 Consider an Ambassador programme, i.e. how do we use Board members to get the message across about what the Fund is doing. Hold another sub-group meeting to review Communications Plan in light of new guidance. LC thanked CMcG and the sub-group for developing the plan and invited discussion on communications. JT suggested using a shop front in the Clyde shopping centre to publicise the Fund on a temporary/”pop-up” type basis. AF said the Shopping Centre had done this for the community engagement event and would be happy to do so again. CMcG suggested using existing community facilities and suggested using existing social media channels such as “Call Yourself A Bankie”. LC stressed the importance of recognising that different people use different means of making and receiving communication. CMcG highlighted the possible use of QR codes which have become widespread. CS thanked CMcG and the sub-group for developing the plan and proposed website structure. CS said that the Neighbourhood Fund is about communities and a clear communities thread could be seen running through these. CS also stressed the importance of making people aware of what the Neighbourhood Fund delivers. DMcA raised the issue of using official UK Government branding and that there are resources available for this and official approval could be sought. AD said that while the Neighbourhood Fund has access to a toolkit of powers it is important ensure that people are aware that it and the website are not a “do-it-all”, expectations will need to be managed. JT suggested the Neighbourhood Fund should have an easily identifiable logo. Perhaps a competition could be held to design this. LC agreed and noted that at least one other Neighbourhoood Fund area has its own logo. CMcG said the sub-group could pick this up. LON suggested offering a prize for the competition. LC conclude the discussion by saying the Communications Plan was an excellent piece of work and thanking CMcG and the sub-group for developing it. Sub-group Sub-group
Page 9
8 8 Next Steps, (early wins) LC said that this could be incorporated into the planned workshops. Perhaps 2/3 messages the Board wants to get out to the community could be developed as part of the workshop process. Board/WDC 9 Any Other Business N/A 10 Date of Next Meeting TBC LC/BMcC Agenda Item Action By Whom 2 Progress document hosting via WDC CMIS Declarations of Interests to be returned Schedule of meetings BMcC Board/AD LC/BMcC 3 Review new guidance and interventions All 4 Review new guidance and interventions Organise workshops to review Board actions All WDC 5 Consider management options, e.g. employment v consultancy, include in content of forthcoming workshops Board/WDC 6 Contact Lynette Lees, Clydebank Housing Association re representative from Housing Sector Investigate representation from disability groups Appoint Vice-Chair LC WDC Board 7 Communications Sub-group to meet Develop logo design competition Communications Sub-group Communications Sub-group 8 Include in forthcoming workshops WDC/Board 10 Schedule of meetings to be circulated LC/WDC
Page 10
Clydebank Neighbourhood Board Meeting 1 August 2025 Clydebank Housing Association Item 3: Plan for Neighbourhood – Review of Workshop Report and Next Steps Workshop Report Introduction Following the change in UK Government guidance relating to the Long-Term Plan, and its shift in focus to become a Plan for Neighbourhoods, Kevin Murray Associates (KMA) was commissioned to undertake a workshop with the Community Neighbourhood Board, previously known as the Town Board. The workshop took place on the 6th of June 2025, in the boardroom of Clydebank Housing Association. Overall, 17 representatives from the community took part in the workshop. The attendees included…. (full agreed list here)
Page 11
1 Workshop Summary The workshop began with a briefing presentation by Kevin Murray, Director at KMA, who took attendees through the changes in guidance between the previous Long Term Plan and the new Plan for Neighbourhoods. He then presented the current state of the plan, before opening the floor to questions and comments. The first comment focused on the importance of creating a lasting legacy for Clydebank through the plan. On the point of scale, it was noted that, lthough £20 million might seem like a significant sum, from a ten-year regeneration perspective it is relatively modest. Therefore, participants were encouraged to consider projects that would have a meaningful and long-term impact on Clydebank. The second observation highlighted the need to use some of the funding to build capacity—particularly social capacity—so that the benefits of the investment could be sustained over time. The attendees were then split into 3 discussion groups and were asked to: Review earlier plans from new neighbourhood-centric perspective Task 1 Review original list of projects (long & short term) Task 2 Consider which of projects are still relevant Task 3 what must retain as priority mark green dot what may be kept mark orange dot what to remove/drop mark red dot Task 4 Identify opportunities for any other initiative types (ie to fit new regs)
Page 12
Each group looked at the projects from a different perspective, the full scoring and comments are in appendix A. Group 1 considered the projects from their experience with their constituency and what they would want to see happening. They picked projects that were low maintenance and had a long-term impact and not a short use, such as meanwhile use projects. Group 2 explored the idea of clustering projects that were seen as complementary, aiming to create a connected network rather than isolated initiatives. They viewed the public realm projects as key to linking the others together. The group also recommended avoiding new projects that would compete with existing facilities, such as the College. Finally, they proposed removing projects that could access funding from other sources – for example, public transport improvements. They felt that funding from this programme should not be used for initiatives that are already the responsibility of other agencies, but rather, collaboration should be pursued. Group 3 considered the projects in light of the new guidance, focusing on initiatives that could attract people and contribute to a vibrant town centre – such as improvements to Three Queens Square. When discussing green spaces, the group emphasised not only the importance of how the space is used, but also who would be responsible for its ongoing management. Themes such as re-purposing buildings, employability, and skills development were also seen as priorities, with many projects identified as suitable for clustering. Additional suggestions for projects included: Enhancing the Titan Crane area to support visitor activity and strengthen the riverside focus. Upgrading the Truth and Justice Square area. Inviting Scottish Canals to join the board and collaborate on relevant projects. Investing in community capacity building. Bringing underused properties back into use for housing, to help create a living town centre. Encouraging a skills and business presence within the town centre to support economic vitality. The tables below represent are drawn from a combination of the three groups scoring.. These are split into 3 tables: 1 what must be retained as priority (Yes), 2 what may be kept (maybe) and 3 what to remove or drop (No).
Page 13
No embedded text on this page.
Page 14
No embedded text on this page.
Page 15
No embedded text on this page.
Page 16
No embedded text on this page.
Page 17
The workplace project was considered unviable due to limited demand in Clydebank. It was suggested that the concept could be incorporated into another project instead. The Canalside Activity Centre was viewed as too reliant on securing an operator. It was also noted that funding might be available from an alternative source.
Page 18
No embedded text on this page.
Page 19
Clydebank Neighbourhood Board Meeting 1 August 2025 Clydebank Housing Association Item 3: Plan for Neighbourhood – Review of Workshop Report and Next Steps PfN Next Steps – July 2025 The following is a summary of what needs to be considered/agreed to advance and assist with the preparation of the Regeneration Plan over the coming months. The 2-part plan requires to be submitted to the MHCLG by 28 November 2025. 1. Interventions The list of interventions to be included within the plan need to be identified by the Board and the local community. The workshop with Board on 6 June 2025 aimed to identify which of the interventions from the LTP should be retained as priority (yes), what may be kept (maybe) and what to remove or drop (No). Action: The Board need to revisit the report from the workshop and agree on the future standing of each of the interventions from the LTP collectively. At the workshop, the Board also suggested some additional interventions: - Enhancing the Titan Crane area to support visitor activity and strengthen the riverside focus Upgrading Truth and Justice Square Investing in community capacity building Bringing underused properties back into use for housing, to help create a living town centre Encouraging a skills and business presence within the town centre to support economic vitality Action: The Board need to decide on the inclusion of these. PfN introduces a broader set of pre-approved interventions. These were not considered at the workshop. Action: The Board need to determine whether any additional interventions from the pre- approved list should be included. If interventions are identified by the Board or the community which fall out with the set of pre-approved interventions these can potentially still be included but would require a business case to be agreed with MHCLG.
Page 20
In Scotland, Neighbourhood Boards must also consider the policy objectives of the Scottish Government’s Regeneration Strategy, in their identification of appropriate interventions which support the regeneration of disadvantaged communities and can complement the Town Centre First Principle and Town Centre Action Plan. MHCLG recommend that Boards have conversations with their MHCLG contact and the Scottish Government Regeneration Unit to consider opportunities to align objectives and maximise funding opportunities. Action: Board to consider the Regeneration Strategy and discuss the alignment of objectives and funding with MHCLG and Scottish Government. 2. Community Engagement Undertaking meaningful engagement with the local community is a central pillar of PfN. WDCVS have agreed to lead on this for the Regeneration Plan preparation stage and are preparing an outline proposal. This will build on the pilot approach undertaken for the LTP and take account of any lessons learned. Under PfN there is a greater emphasis on involving everyone from the community, so the approach needs to identify how the views of ‘hard to reach’ groups are captured. As part of the outline proposal WDCVS will consider this together with the timeframe for engagement, costs, and what support they might require from WDC. Action: Review proposed approach then prepare for and arrange the engagement to inform the Regeneration Plan. Rather than consult again on the interventions identified as part of the LTP it would be wise to have a sense check on these and concentrate on asking the community about other interventions they think should be included in the Regeneration Plan e.g. based on the new set of approved interventions or any new interventions that have been suggested by the Board. Action: Get agreement from the Board on this approach. During the engagement WDCVS undertook for the LTP the community offered comments on how they would like to be involved in the process going forward. They are keen that a strong and positive relationship be established between all parties involved in the future regeneration of Clydebank. Some suggestions were to: hold more events as things progress let people in the community meet the Board and show them the issues they face update and involve the community via newsletters go to schools and talk to the children about the issues they have with Clydebank go to places of work and talk to staff talk to the elderly and find out what they need/want introduce a social media account that documents the activities, projects and history Clydebank and get people to join in on the conversations as to what is affecting them in their daily lives
Page 21
Action: Consider whether any of these suggestions should be built into the community engagement approach for the Regeneration Plan preparation and/or undertaken at the plan delivery stage. 3. Preparation of the Regeneration Plan Content guidelines have been provided for the Regeneration Plan. It will likely be shorter than the LTP and only contain information that is necessary. Kevin Murray Associates have been approached to assist with the drafting of the Regeneration Plan. An outline specification was sent, and costs are to be submitted. Action: Board to agree approach to plan preparation. 4. Plan Submission Questions The MHCLG have specific questions which the Board will be asked to respond to when the Regeneration Plan is being submitted. These will need to be reviewed to ensure that the required information is captured during the preparation of the Regeneration Plan. Action: Plan submission questions to be reviewed and then completed and submitted with the Regeneration Plan. 5. Use of Capacity Funding The next tranche of £200,000 of PfN capacity funding has been received. How this is to be used needs to be decided. The guidance suggests it could include: developing the Regeneration Plan performing community engagement, which could include passporting money directly to voluntary and community sector groups to assist with engagement securing advice and expertise for Neighbourhood Boards for the technical elements of plan development and delivery e.g. employing someone to support the Board and progress the PfN facilitate running of the Neighbourhood Board, including any process to establish the board as a charity, community interest company, or other bottom-up organisational model, to sustain long-term investment ensuring capital and infrastructure interventions identified can hit the ground running, for example, by starting the planning application process, getting architectural plans, or any other activity that could help progress the delivery of the Regeneration Plan Action: Get agreement of the Board to use capacity funding for the development of the Regeneration Plan and performing the community engagement via WDCVS. The Board also need to decide on how else the capacity funding should be used. 6. Board Membership
Page 22
Whilst not vital at the plan preparation stage there may be value in looking at the membership of the Board in the advance of the delivery stage. The MHCLG note that there are several council officers on the Board with voting rights. They suggest that one is more within the spirit of the programme, so the Board is truly representative of the community it is serving. As there is a greater emphasis on involving the community having greater community presence on the Board may be appropriate. It has also been suggested there would be merit in having the housing sector and more private sector (e.g. from the local business base) involved. Scottish Canals were mentioned as a possible Board member but declined in the past. Action: To consider other potential Board members.
Page 23
Plan for Neighbourhoods Fund 1 Clydebank Neighbourhood Board Meeting 1 August 2025 Clydebank Housing Association Item 6: Plan for Neighbourhood – Finance summary and project resource FOR INFORMATION ONLY X FOR DECISION Name of Committee Board Date of report 23/07/2025 Name and email of lead contact Elaine Troup Elaine.Troup@west-dunbarton.gov.uk 1 Main Issues £250,000 capacity finding has been received to date. £152,024.24 been spent to date, with £97,975.76 remining available. Please refer to the breakdown below: Community grants funding £4,300 Consultancy fees for development of the Long Term Plan and Community Engagement £86,939.10 Board meeting £130 Board meeting £170 Board meeting £130 Board meeting £170 ICT costs £185.14 Contribution to WDC staff costs £60,000 Total spend to 21/07/2025 £152,024.24 Further £200,000 is expected in FY 25/26 which means that the overall budget for FY 25/26 is £297,975.76. Delivery funding will be released in FY 26/27 and the table below outlines the schedule of payments outlined in the new Plan for Neighbourhoods guidance.
Page 24
Plan for Neighbourhoods Fund 2 2 Outline of any issues/risks and how these are being managed Timescales for release of the delivery funding. Delivery funding won’t be release till FY 26/27, with only £360k of capital funding available in FY 26/27. The Board requires to prioritise projects/interventions for FY 25/26 and 26/27. 3 Outline of the main outputs expected before next meeting 4 What are the requirements of stakeholders to achieve the outcomes of this report? Where possible, engage with the delivery process outside the Board meetings e.g. through a working group. 5 Recommendations It is recommended that the Board notes the financial information and considers how the FY 25/26 and 26/27 funding should be allocated.