Agenda item

 

To consider the delivery of the Thriving Neighbourhoods Strategy and the Neighbourhood Working model.

Further to Minute No. 20 of 20^th September, 2018, Councillor Watson, Deputy Leader, and Shokat Lal, Assistant Chief Executive, presented a summary of the delivery of the Thriving Neighbourhoods Strategy and the Neighbourhood working model.

 

The Thriving Neighbourhoods Strategy (2019-2025) had been approved by Cabinet in November, 2018 (Minute No. 55 refers) and an implementation plan developed which was constantly reviewed and refreshed on a monthly basis.  The implementation plan identified the following drivers:-

 

·           Engage and develop the workforce

·           Councillors as Community Leaders

·           Communication and engagement

·           Asset Based Community Development

·           Integrated Place Based Working

·           Role of Parish Councils

 

There had been significant progress on implementing the Strategy since November 2018.  The report submitted highlighted the work that had taken plan under the above drivers.

 

Discussion ensued with the following issues raised/clarified:-

 

-          Housing Revenue Account (HRA) – it was noted that any Ward base budget not spent by the end of the financial year would be returned to the main HRA budget.  Was there some mechanism where, if a Ward Panel had been particularly busy and had projects on the shelf ready to go, that they could bid for funding before it went back into the central pot?

 

This was still under discussion and would be a political decision.  The logic of the current policy was that all neighbourhood budgets would run for the term of office and when the Wards changed, if not spent, it was returned to the central pot. 

 

-          A Tenant may live in a Parish and pay a Parish precept.  Was there a possibility of the Parish precept being used with the Ward base budget and the tenant feeling that they were paying twice?  

 

Parish Councils were responsible for their own budget and had their own priorities which may coincide with those of the Borough Council.  It was hoped that conversations would take place to allow smarter spending in the future and avoid duplication.

 

-          What were the short term objectives and long term prospects for the Community Sport and Health apprenticeship?

 

The Apprenticeship Levy, in terms of funding, had very clear guidelines in terms of what apprenticeships you could have and how the training programme and funding was used to support apprentices. 

 

These were apprenticeship placements very much linked to Public Health, sport and sporting activities that were fairly new and unique focussing on a particular area. 

 

They were quite wide in their reach around looking at health-based activities, the whole focus of Public Health and community development and how you connected communities around particular areas of health activities.  It was felt that they presented a wide scope of what roles the individuals could go into once they had completed their apprenticeships. 

 

It was anticipated recruitment would take place in September.  There was a proper infrastructure around the training and support for these particular roles and it was hoped they would have a number of career opportunities.  The roles would not just focus on neighbourhood working or communicating development but also work actively with residents, dealing with some of the Council Plan indicators etc. across the Borough and working with partners.

 

They were quite unique in terms of what they offered and may in the future but there was confidence there would be roles for them.

 

-          At the moment projects were supported on a majority vote; what would happen if there was a conflict when some of the Wards were reduced to 2 Members?  Was there conflict resolution. 

 

The guidance provided in April made it clear that the guidance was up until the 2020 elections.  It was the intention to refresh the guidance early next year taking into account boundary revisions and how a dispute was to be resolved should one arise. 

 

Dispute resolution would be a challenge for the Neighbourhood Working Forum. 

 

-          How would the campaign/Thriving Neighbourhood Strategy be promoted to different groups especially ethnic minorities and religious institutions?

 

The Voluntary Action Rotherham (VAR) contract had been changed 18 months ago and included them embracing enhanced neighbourhood working and looking at capacity building.  The contract was reviewed annually with VAR held to account on what work was taking place. 

 

Work was underway looking at other authorities as to what they did around customer segmentation and the breaking down of Ward intelligence.  It would help Ward Councillors to understand what was happening in their Ward and what resources they needed as well as identifying hard to reach groups. 

 

With regard to communications, it was about knowing your residents and the different ways and channels to engage. 

 

-          Talked about staff and the Members working together but there were some issues that staff dealt with on a daily basis.  Would it be an idea to report any serious issues to Members?

 

Yes that should happen.  There were 21 Wards and every one would have a slightly different way of working.

 

-          Multi-Agency Groups (MAGS) – if not working where was this going?  What was happening with them.

 

There were different experiences in different Wards.  The recently announced extra Police resources were to be deployed into the neighbourhoods.  Each area would have more warranted Police Officers.

 

-          The hardest thing to spend was Capital and more flexibility was required.  It was easy to spend Revenue but Capital was a lot harder because of the rules.

 

Unfortunately there were strict accounting rules and it was not possible. 

 

-          Can we consider whether Members could give Ward update presentations to full Council rather than read from a script?

 

-          Provision of public water fountains.

 

If a request for provision was submitted it would be costed. 

 

-          Did Purdah apply to Area Housing Panels and if so they needed to be made aware of it with regard to spend.

 

If the final decision on HRA money fell to an Elected Member then it would fall foul of Purdah.

 

The guidance was very clear.  Councillors had been advised that they had to have allocated/committed their Ward budgets by 31^st January 2020 and all budgets have to be spent by 31^st March, 2020.  Purdah would not commence until the beginning of the new financial year so should not affect the spending of the budgets.

 

-          Last year there was an update on Ward statistics – would that be re-issued/updated?

 

-          Spending approvals – could Members have a quarterly update?

 

The figures came from the Finance Department and only counted when the funding had been spent.  The individual Ward’s figures would always be more current because it would know what had been committed.

 

-          Was the Strategy being delivered and was it working?

 

Yes it was.

 

-          Asset Management – the report stated that a building was advertised for a month and 2 months to complete.  Was that a tight timeline?

 

It was 2 months to complete a business case.  Whilst it may not be long enough, there was an asset deteriorating while it was taking place. 

 

Resolved:-  (1)  That the progress of the delivery of the Thriving Neighbourhoods Strategy and the Neighbourhood Working model be noted.

 

(2)  That the Select Commission be supplied with the guidance with regard to Purdah and the spending of the devolved budgets.