Agenda item

Consideration was given to the report presented by the Deputy Leader and Assistant Chief Executive which detailed the production of a new Neighbourhood Strategy, which would see the Wards as the building blocks that enabled partners and communities to work together to improve local outcomes.

 

The Strategy’s aim was for the Council and residents to work together to achieve better quality of life and described the key role for Elected Members, both as champions of place and as community leaders, bringing together those who cared about the local neighbourhood. The Strategy also described how the Council would take a strength based approach drawing on existing strengths in the community and valuing the role of voluntary and community groups and assets.

 

The Head of Performance, Intelligence and Improvement had led on the development of the Thriving Neighbourhoods Strategy and had spoken to a whole range of stakeholders.  This good piece of work had identified examples of neighbourhood activity and one of the challenges being faced was consistency rather than pockets of good activity and good practices. 

 

The restructure of Neighbourhood Services had been lengthy, but with the support of the Trades Unions was moving forwards and the outstanding vacancies being filled.  During the transitional period there had also been a review of the Neighbourhood Service to align it with the new model.  A new Head of Neighbourhoods joined the Council earlier this month.

 

Further comments on the Strategy were welcomed as it was still draft prior to receiving formal approval by Cabinet in November, 2018.

 

As part of the implementation, staff were in place to work across the Council in the delivery of services.  The importance of working together with Members was recognised  to take the civic leadership model forward. 

 

A discussion and a question and answer session ensued and the following issues were raised and clarified:-

 

·                Page 24 of the report referred to the governance and key priorities and CCTV deployment. 

 

CCTV would be used as part of the Strategy and where this was not working it would be resolved.

 

·                Page 25 also referred to joint working and a co-ordinated review of Housing Panels; had any consideration been given to the pooling of resources or even with the Parish Councils.

 

This appeared to be the only anomaly arising from the old area assembly footprint, but rather than suggesting change now it would be recommended that this be reconfigured fresh in 2020.  The Cabinet Member would be receiving a report shortly.

 

There could be instances where both the neighbourhood group and Parish Council might have same objective and which may require some collaborative working.  Each occasion would be considered on a case by case basis.

 

·                Training on the Strategy moving forward - would this be available for both Members and officers.

 

Training was scheduled at the beginning of October and Rotherfed were working on more bespoke training for community organisations. 

 

Further discussion would take place on what was available for Members and officers with joint training where appropriate.

 

·                Was there an impact on the Strategy for 2020 with the boundary and Ward profiles changing.

 

With the boundary changes there would be lead in time.  Some Wards may be carrying forward money, but this would not be possible into 2020.

 

·           Could consideration be given to a more dynamic strapline.

 

This would be fed back to the report authors and the title considered for the report moving forward.

 

·                Page 44 made reference to the casework management system.  Whilst the system was good it was not always easily accessible for some users.

 

The casework management system was developing and evolving.  Feedback would be taken on board and eventually link with complaints.

 

·                Page 50 made reference to the statistical analysis and the drawing out of common themes in the north, south and central areas of Rotherham.  Unfortunately, whilst parish councils were very prominent in the south there were very few in the south and none in the central areas.

 

The information was noted.   There was a need for better clarity and relevance in reporting as the multi-agency work with the clustering of wards could be confusing.

 

·                Could the flexibility be retained for CLF monies with ward budgets.

 

The future of CLF and Ward budgets were still to be considered with some concerns expressed about a potential merger.

 

·                Could there be further training in the use of social media.

 

Training in this area was to be scheduled shortly.

 

 

·                Had the new post of Senior Communications Officer been appointed to.

 

Currently this post was still vacant following a recruitment process and the advert was being reissued.

 

·                There was some evidence of good work in Rotherham, but this was not reflected in all Wards with little or no consultation with residents and partners or multi-agency meetings.  There was an asset based approach to Ward working, but the Council was just about to demolish an asset without any communication or engagement with residents.

 

There was some inconsistency across Rotherham, but by working with the Head of Neighbourhoods with Ward Members issues could be addressed.  The example of a building being demolished in a Ward without consultation could be used as a case study moving forward.

 

There was merit in moving forward and whilst some Wards that had not generated work like others, there was evidence of community activity and events taking place.  Some of the devolved budget was also being held back for match funding.

 

·                There were some issues with access to community centres, the difficulty in them being hired and accessible along with misunderstandings over asset transfers and the differences between capital and revenue funding streams.

 

Community centres should be easily accessible for the community.

 

Due to the cuts from Central Government the Council had low revenue, but was more capital rich.  Should the plans for Thriving Neighbourhoods move forward then this should also add to revenue funding.

 

·                Reference was made to disused land and the land ownership map by the Council not being completed.

 

This was being addressed.

 

·                There was good evidence that this great initiative was working with spending contributing and aligning with the Ward plans with clear linkage.  There was little merit in changing good initiatives so the Community Leadership Fund should remain as flexible as possible.

 

Wards could not keep rolling forward their pooled funding as this would be absorbed into the Council finances in 2020 and the reasons for the money not being spent in Wards should be challenged by residents.

 

·                There were still some inconsistencies or policies in place and Page 47 made reference to the formalisation of Ward meetings.  How would this be monitored and by whom. 

 

Ward meetings were not monitored at moment and it was envisaged that a consistent standard would be developed by the Head of Neighbourhoods.

 

Resolved:-  (1)  That the review the Annual Report 2017/18 Neighbourhood Working including recommendations for future delivery be noted with the comments made at today’s meeting.

 

(2)  That the Thriving Neighbourhoods: The Rotherham Neighbourhood Strategy 2018-2025 document be noted.

 

(3)  That the required  training for Members and officers in relation to the working of Thriving Neighbourhoods be undertaken as soon as possible.

 

(4)  That progress in relation to devolved budgets, governance framework (including monitoring of progress on Ward Plans and evaluation of them) be reported back to the Select Commission in six months’ time.