Agenda item

To receive an annual report in respect of the delivery of the Neighbourhood Working Model and the Neighbourhoods Strategy.

Consideration was given to a report presented by the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhood Working and the Head of Neighbourhoods. It was noted that the model was described as exemplary following a recent peer review by the LGA. Cabinet had refreshed and updated the Strategy last year, including a delivery plan for the new updated strategy, included in the report. The strategy was based upon the priorities and objectives set out within the Council Plan. The delivery plan was summarised, and also included many priorities reflected within the ward plans. Continuous engagement was ongoing to inform the delivery plan and ward priorities.

Areas of focus included providing more opportunities for people with protected characteristics to participate in and engage with the delivery of the Strategy, and increasing the visibility of ward priorities across the Council. A programme of neighbourhood tours for staff had also been introduced, so that staff have a sense of the neighbourhoods they serve. Community safety issues were also being addressed within the Strategy through partnership working with South Yorkshire Police to improve CAPS and tasking groups. Regarding this, proposals informed by Members would be submitted to the Safer Rotherham Partnership. Integrated locality working was a further area for development.

In discussion, the Chair clarified the term Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was a source of funding from new developments that is used to deliver priorities and projects within the wards.

Members requested further information regarding the development of the website. The response from the Head of Neighbourhoods indicated that regular posts from the Service feed into the website, but previously the messages were routed first through the Council’s corporate news feed. This was being resolved so that the Service could post directly onto the ward webpages.

Members sought more information regarding the work to achieve parity between wards. The response from the Cabinet Member and the Head of Neighbourhoods illustrated a key way the Strategy aimed to achieve parity was in the priority area of perceptions of safety. This was being delivered through improvements to functionality of the CAPS, tackling ASB issues, and submitting a series of proposals to the Safer Rotherham Partnership to this effect.

Members sought further clarification of times and targets for the delivery plan with a view to being able to show impact and value added, noting that much of the work is to support and enable work of other services. The response from the Head of Neighbourhoods explained the absence of times and targets from the report is due to cross referencing strategies from other parts of the Council which are linked into the Neighbourhoods Strategy but have their own impact targets and delivery plans. This was not repeated in this report in the interest of avoiding duplication. Ward plans, however, did have their own impact and were included within the delivery plan. Statistics and ward breakdowns alongside case studies, provided evidence to demonstrate impact. Members noted the desire for time scales and targets to be added, especially to track progress with expanding inclusion.

Members noted the ambition of the service for continuous improvement and sought more information on how the delivery of the Neighbourhood Working Model is narrowing the gap between more deprived and less deprived areas within the borough and how the Strategy will have an impact on addressing deprivation. In terms of more deprived and less deprived neighbourhoods, the response from the Cabinet Member noted the continuation of allocating some parts of the budget based on the numbers of households, with other parts of the budget allocated based on the number of council households, within which there may be a higher proportion of deprived households. A system was currently being developed whereby neighbourhoods could be considered according to indices that would identify the areas that had the most to gain from improved access to resources.

Members sought to know more details around the challenges faced in the delivery of the Strategy and how these were addressed. The response from the Cabinet Member explained that the position was being reviewed as to whether or not there were enough housing officers in each ward based on the complexity of need within the wards. The existing roles of housing officers were also under review, to consider if these were the right roles to deal with the complexity well. It was noted that although the distribution was felt to be fair numerically, there were some areas where pressure on the role of a housing officer was very different to other areas. These considerations would be factored in in time for next year’s budget decisions.

Elaborating on the role of the north, south, and central areas of the borough, the Head of Neighbourhoods noted the directive of government was that in any areas where there is a parish, the Community Infrastructure Levy money will go to parishes. To help tackle inequalities, Neighbourhoods Teams promote the ward priorities that Members have designated to make sure the Council is responding to the priorities set by Members. This informs the areas of focus for service delivery and policy.

Regarding Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) moneys, Members sought additional insight into whether utility companies invest in the community. The response from the Head of Neighbourhoods indicated that although CIL was primarily around housing development, the question would be passed on to planning colleagues for response.

Members requested additional information regarding whether CIL and allocated ward budgets would be going up in line with inflation. The response from the Cabinet Member noted that indicative numbers for next year were similar to the numbers for this year and would not likely be going up.

Members sought to find out if more case studied could be shared around enforcement activity and outcomes. The response from the Head of Neighbourhoods reaffirmed that ward data should be received on a quarterly basis. This data included police, environmental health, and housing data. If this data was not received regularly, Members were requested to contact the Head of Neighbourhoods directly. It was noted that the Service continually pressed for better communications with Children’s Services, especially around consultations and schemes. Whilst communications had shown some improvement as a result, it was felt that there was room for more improvement. The Cabinet Member for Social Inclusion responded to note that the feedback of Members regarding publicity of events which receive Children’s Capital of Culture funds would be shared with the Service.

Resolved:-

1.    That the progress of the delivery of the Thriving Neighbourhoods Strategy be noted.

2.    That inflation and rising costs of materials and labour should be factored into ward delegated budgets.

3.    That the outcomes of proposals to the Safer Rotherham Partnership be submitted for overview.