Minutes:
The Executive Director of Neighbourhoods submitted a report setting out the local and national context in which the Council’s proposals for neighbourhood development was set.
It provided a summary of the steps to be taken to put in place, the right conditions to develop neighbourhood management in Rotherham and the partnership with communities and key organisations such as the Police. The report also set out some of the local and national issues that required the Council to put in place neighbourhood management arrangements particularly in terms of the Council’s overall standing.
It had been recognised that the Council required a proper infrastructure to deliver the changes needed to tackle deprivation in neighbourhoods. A clear role was also needed for Area Assemblies, which was also linked to the role of Ward Membership role and Community Leadership, and strengthen the community planning processes .
An action plan had been produced (Appendix 1) , the first 6 months of which would enable a proper insight to be gained of where the Council was and an understanding of how far its partners were prepared to go in joining force with the Authority to tackle certain issues. A Corporate Task Group had been established to ensure that the actions were taken forward.
Discussion ensued on the report with the following points clarified:-
§ It was the intention to align the neighbourhood management areas with Area Assembly boundaries. The Police were on board and the Primary Care Trust, although not sharing area boundaries, were hoping to share a collection of Ward boundaries.
§ Pathfinder boundaries, set by Central Government, did not follow Ward boundaries because of the definition of deprivation and could not be changed.
§ It was for the Council and its partners to ensure that arrangements were in place to maintain the confidence of the community and recognised as a body that could tackle and resolve problems. The Council was the community leader and the organisation that took on board the concerns of the whole community and, therefore, needed to ensure that it knew there was someone in charge of ensuring problems were solved.
§ Members had expressed the need to see some real changes taking place in the way service was delivered and the way resources were targeted particularly in those communities where people were subject to deprivation and exclusion from main stream activities. Strengthening the Community Planning Framework would ensure that issues stated in the Plan changed the way Council services were delivered and the way partner organisations operated. The process needed to be properly integrated with business planning.
§ Numerous discussions had taken place with regard to Area Assemblies and the need for absolute clarity as to their role. Political decisions would need to be made to clarify their role and determine their decision making powers.
§ Neighbourhood management was designed to help deliver a change in services that community members felt excluded from. These would include housing, employment, training etc. and crossed all Programme Areas. Currently there was insufficient information to ascertain an accurate profile of a neighbourhood i.e. what community facilities there were, who were the key players for that community, what difference the activity/resources/spend had had. That baseline information would be utilised to conduct a Best Value Review of Neighbourhood Management.
§ The Neighbourhood Renewal Unit was a national Unit set up to provide advice to partnerships who were serious about tackling deprivation. A bid had been made to the Unit for an Advisor to enable the Authority to learn nationally what had been successful. The Advisor was funded by Central Government but it was only for a 10 day period.
§ There were issues of the Best Value Review that would link into the Community Leadership of the Local Council Review undertaken by the Democratic Resources Scrutiny Panel. The scope of the Neighbourhood Management Review needed to be established by February, 2005, in order to produce an improvement plan to inform phase 2 of the review 2005/06.
§ There was no deliberate intent to exclude Parish Councils or ignore the forthcoming Quality Parish Councils. The report was a “catch all” and many organisations/services were not mentioned. Under the new arrangements Parish Councils also had rights.
§ Once a Parish Council had achieved “Quality Service” they had the opportunity to take over services such as Streetpride. There were no plans at present as to how this would be dealt with. Discussions were needed to develop the Council’s Framework and the neighbourhood development approach. A series of opportunities for developing decentralised services was being produced which all needed to be debated as part of the bigger framework.
§ The issue of Parish Council boundaries was not set by the Programme Area. There was to be a review of the Parliamentary boundaries in 2005 followed by Parish Councils in 2007.
§ Many of the Parish Councils had Parish Plans and there was a question of how they would fit into Community Planning for the new neighbourhoods. It had to be ensured that the Community Development Framework had a strong Community Planning process as it changed the way actions were delivered and the way spending was targeted so that it made a real difference on the ground. One of the many issues was the multitude of plans and how to streamline them. The Programme Area was currently looking at the way services were delivered, what their impact was and what results they had had and how smarter plans could be produced.
Resolved:- (1) That the report and outline project plan be noted.
(2) That the matter be referred to the Performance and Scrutiny Overview Committee recommending that a joint review be carried out by the Democratic and Resources and Environment Scrutiny Panels.