Dear Petitioner,

Re: Petition received on 4th August 2022

Firstly, may I apologise for the time it has taken to respond to the petition you signed last August.

As you’ll understand, with the resignation of the previous board of Strathdearn Community Developments (SCD) and the bringing together of the new board, it has taken longer than expected to provide a response.

I absolutely recognise that the issues raised in the petition are both genuine and entirely legitimate, and can sympathise with the level of frustration in the community that led to the signing of the petition. I also want to be clear that I understand that this is related both to the pavements and to wider concerns with SCD.

I would also like to recognise that, following the delivery of the petition, there was a noticeable upturn in the pace of the work to finish the pavements and that, without the community’s involvement through the submission of the petition to The Highland Council, this may not have been the case. This demonstrates that in this, and in the wider activities of SCD, it remains crucial that the community remains actively engaged and involved.

The Paths Project

As you’ll appreciate, as a relatively recent addition to the community, I am not as steeped in the history of this project as many others, but I do understand that the Paths Project has been a long-standing item on the community agenda (approx. since 2007). It has changed hands and gone through many iterations through those 13 years and has been subject to a number of consultations, specifications and styles. It has never been an easy project and, while in some areas compromise has been required, in others it has not been possible.

To address the points raised in the petition:

Point 1: “Lack of consultation about the major revisions to the plans for the works being carried out along the road heading south from the community hub to Juniper Drive including the installation of infrastructure for street lighting.”

There was clearly a discrepancy between the communication SCD understood had taken place and the community’s understanding of the project.

SCD discussed the project at board meetings (at that point open to the public), community council meetings, and via the community newsletter, website and Facebook groups. In addition, the planning matters were advertised in the Inverness Courier and published on The Highland Council (THC) website. Almost no responses were received from the community to any of these communications.

This was felt by SCD to have been a strong communicative effort when combined with the consultations led by THC in respect of speed limit extensions and the narrowing of the bridge and bridge viaduct.

However, I can see that there was not a clear understanding of the pavements in the community at the point the works commenced, and that elements of the design and delivery were not well understood. Personally, I know that I struggle with architectural drawings and that when I tried to visualise what was on the diagrams it was not what was delivered. However, that is not to say that the works did not follow the approved plans – only that I didn’t understand them, and I am sure I was not the only one. This should not have been the case.

On reflection, the lack of community engagement with the communications issued, and the lack of comments received in respect of the project (positive or negative), should have been a red flag that methods of communication were not working.

In the time I’ve lived in Strathdearn, it’s been clear to me that the community, while not always speaking with a single mind, is a community that is keen to speak its mind on matters that affect it. The absence of responses should not have been held to be an absence of opinions. Additional efforts should have been made.

SCD will work hard going forward to ensure that a meaningful dialogue takes place with the community to deliver projects that are well understood and where the community has had (and has hopefully taken) the opportunity to discuss, reflect and make suggestions. What I’d ask of the community is that you help us get it right – please engage early with project plans or consider volunteering for the board, and please assist us in bringing the benefits of the wind farm funds to our community.

I’d also like to touch upon the question of street lighting. At the AGM in February 2022 (at which I was not present), it was raised by a number of members as to why street lighting had not been factored into the project for the safety reasons (mainly for children making their way to school, or home on a winter’s evening).

Following what I’m told was a lengthy debate, it was agreed that the infrastructure would be incorporated into the construction phase as it was sensible to futureproof the path, with a view to a formal consultation taking place at an unspecified future date to determine the community’s view. It was, and is not, an intention that street lighting would be installed without further consultation.

Point 2: “Length of time the work has taken and disruption caused.”

It is clear that this project overran and that the length of the works was a huge cause of frustration, both for the community and for SCD. Given the nature of the contracts to deliver the pavements, the day-to-day project management was undertaken by The Highland Council.

SCD did feed back concerns raised by the community and SCD itself, and was notified that delays were due to birds nesting, tree management and road closure notices that compounded the problems.

As noted above, however, we do also note the galvanising impact of the petition on the pace of works.

In terms of learning from the experience, SCD will at times (due to resource constraints or funding mechanisms) not retain full control of project delivery. In these instances, the choice will be made to operate with and through partners and, in such situations, SCD does not have the same ability to control delivery. SCD will continue to think carefully regarding future projects to ensure sufficient leverage is maintained to meet timescales and delivery milestones.

Please accept the apologies of SCD regarding the additional disruption of last summer; it was keenly felt by all.

Point 3: “Specification of work and materials.”

The specification and materials outlined in the plans and drawings were agreed with THC on the premise these would meet their criteria to an adoptable standard, as THC would have the ongoing burden for maintenance. As is the case with any project, cost and specification enhancement must be balanced, and for this project the target specification was adoptability.

The brief provided was intended to balance the criteria for ‘an adoptable standard’ with providing a less urban–style path, in keeping with our rural surroundings. I can fully understand that not everyone will consider this point met.

I hope the above responses answer the points raised in the petition, and also outline the thinking of SCD regarding how such challenges can be avoided in future.

Yours sincerely,

Mr Steven Knott

Chairman, Strathdearn Community Developments