Modern.gov Breadcrumb
- Agenda item
Modern.gov Content
Agenda item
Neighbourhood Partnerships - The Future
There will be a presentation for this item from Gemma Dando and Penny Germon which is attached. Additional documents are also attached.
Minutes:
Penny Germon gave a presentation on the above and made the following points:
(1) The total budget for NPs was £1.1 Million;
(2) Principles for future service provision were to ensure appropriate community action and to help to contribute to mayoral priorities through the corporate plan;
(3) The current structures were very intensive and top down bottom up;
(4) There were 2 extremes of neighbourhood service delivery – the first ensured empowered citizens through a structure with strong community links and which operated flexibly and requested help from Bristol City Council when required. The structures provided a shared vision which solved problems and provided no barriers for participation. At the other extreme, there was a top down serve led approach which was not resilient, problem solving or participative. In this structure, activists were unsupported and there was competition for resources;
(5) In order to support an empowered structure, support was required for community development work, information flow and exchange and business planning and governance. A resource was needed to provide support for using existing sources of funding such as CIL. Section 106 and to provide a budget for this;
(6) A locality conference was scheduled for 4th February 2017. An overview for this event would be sent out next week. This would encourage a conversation for this issue and consider various options;
(7) Whilst some people held the view that the existing NP structure provided a good basis to consider options for 2017/18, in other areas the current structure did not work as well as required and an alternative needed to be considered;
(8) The new structure needed to be co-designed by the people, the community and the Council;
(9) Resources needed to be focused on those areas that most needed it and ensuring that the skill and expertise to support future arrangements were in place.
Councillors made the following points and officers responded as appropriate:
Asset Mapping
More information was required on how the arrangements for asset mapping would take place to explain how these would work. Officers agreed that there was a need to consider the energy and resource required for this and put in place arrangements to deliver. The approach could not be top down but needed to come from voluntary and community groups.
Current Arrangements
The structure for delivery was already in place through Neighbourhood Partnerships. The presentation did not properly recognise what they currently do ie footpath repairs, work in parks etc
Added Community Value
Usually, where funding was obtained through the voluntary and community sector, a complex calculation was provided to assess the added value that the community provided in arrangements such as this. It was surprising that this wasn’t included in this calculation. The Council needed to recognise the shared communication routes. In the case of the Bishopston Cotham Redland Neighbourhood Partnership, existing groups wanted to continue to operate in the future. If no support at all was provided for them, they would become disengaged from the process. It was a great concern for the future if no match funding could be provided for these organisations since other resources would not be unlocked;
A Realistic Approach and Lessons From Other Local Authorities
The Council needed to be honest with communities about the approach that was being adopted. Bristol needed to learn lessons from the approaches taken elsewhere from other local authorities which had already faced draconian cuts, such as Liverpool. Officers stated that there was some information available on this in relation to core cities and the south west which was being continuously updated. More information on this would be available at 4th February 2017 event which would look at further examples of how resources could be obtained and how Bristol City Council could support the process. Officers confirmed that the pie chart showing £1.1 Million did not include the cost of development.
Pie Chart – More Detail
Further information on the situation contained in the pie chart on the current situation would be helpful.
Access for New Groups
Further information was required on the ways in which new groups would access new ways of working.
Future Funding
There were serious concerns about how the small grants fund would be funded.
Inequality
More detail was required in terms of assets to enable the council to address the issue of inequality across the city. Some areas of the city were disadvantaged but nevertheless asset rich and this needed to be taken into account.
Savings and An Apparently Doctrinal Approach
The document appeared to be talking down to Councillors and seemed to be taking an approach based on saving money and a doctrinal approach to neighbourhood working which could put at risk some of the good work being carried out across the city. In order to avoid enclaves of separate work developing across the city, the role of Bristol City Council was important in providing legitimacy for local groups. Officers denied that the approach was talking down to Councillors but was developing a conceptual approach for the future.
Achieving Savings
In response to a question concerning whether or not the proposed changes would meet the £500,000 to be removed from the budget, officers stated that, whilst this was not yet clear, a further report would be considered at 24th February 2017 Scrutiny Commission meeting to provide a further update on this, including the estimated social, environmental and financial impact of any proposals.
Governance
Any remaining funding would still require a system of governance. If Neighbourhood Partnerships did not exist, would the budget be given directly to Councillors or alternatively would any replacement funding regime operate on different boundaries?
Future Arrangements for Distribution of Funding
It was noted that Section 106 funding could not be re-allocated outside of a particular geographic area and that, whilst some CIL funding would be available locally, 85% would be distributed across the whole city. There would also be significantly less funding available.
Action:
(1) that officers send to Councillors information on work carried out in core cities and in the south west in other local authorities relating to devolved funding arrangements;
(2) that a more detailed breakdown of information be provided to Councillors concerning the pie chart contained in the presentation;
(3) that it is noted that a further update report will be provided at the next meeting on 24th February 2017 concerning this issue and which will provide a social, environmental and financial assessment of what has been achieved through the existing NP structures and how much will the proposed cut cost.
Gemma Dando/Penny Germon
Supporting documents: