Agenda and minutes

            An apology for inability to attend was reported from Councillor McAllister.

            The minutes of the meetings of 11th and 18th November were taken as read and signed as correct.  It was reported that those minutes had been adopted by the Council at its meeting on 1st December.

            No declarations of interest were reported.

            The Information contained in the following four reports is restricted in accordance with Part 1 of Schedule 6 of the Local Government Act (Northern

Ireland) 2014

            The Committee considered a report which provided an update on the development of the revenue estimates for 2017/18 and the key issues which Members needed to consider as part of the rates settlement process.

            After discussion the Committee:

·        Noted the update on the development of the revenue estimates and the setting of the district rate;

·        Agreed to the next steps to setting the rate as outlined in paragraph 3.9 of the report; and

·        Agreed that those areas for potential savings which had been identified by the Political Parties be considered in the first instance by the Budget and Transformation Panel.

            The Committee considered a report in relation to the potential acquisition of Commission House, Belfast as a Strategic Investment in line with the Belfast City Centre Regeneration and Investment Strategies.

            The Committee agreed to the Council pursuing the potential acquisition of Commission House, on the basis of the Land and Property Services valuation, but subject to the Council obtaining its own independent valuation and undertaking other due diligence, with a further report to be submitted to the Committee prior to any final decisions.

            The Committee noted the contents of a report in relation to the Member’s IT equipment package and agreed to hold party group briefings in January to consider its recommendations.

            The Committee deferred consideration of a report in relation to the revision to the management of the City Hall function booking processes to enable the recommendations contained therein to be considered as part of the rate setting process.

            The Committee was reminded that, in accordance with standing orders, the following notice of motion in relation to the Metropolitan City Growth Deal, which had been proposed by Alderman Convery and seconded by Councillor Attwood, had been referred to the Committee for consideration:

“This Council notes that the British Government has agreed major City Region Deals in England, Scotland and Wales, including:

a £1.13 billion Glasgow and Clyde Valley Infrastructure Fund, in partnership with Scottish Government and local authorities;

a £1.2billion City Deal for the Cardiff Capital Region, in partnership with the Welsh Government and 10 local authorities; and

a £315m City Region Deal for Inverness and the wider Highlands area with Scottish and UK governments.

The Council notes that these deals are based on the ability to increase productivity and also in many cases to ensure that many communities are not left behind.  The ability of councils to contribute finance alongside the Treasury and the Northern Ireland Executive to fund major infrastructure, regeneration and skills development projects, in Belfast, will be essential to realising the executive's emerging economic and a social strategies.

The Council recognises that City Region Deals can have far-reaching impacts, not just on the economy, but on regional competitiveness, connectivity, infrastructure, housing, employment and lifestyle.

The Council welcomes the dialogue with neighbouring local Councils about promoting city region devolution deals and calls upon the Minister of Finance and the Northern Ireland Executive to prioritise City Region Deals and to actively facilitate negotiations between the Department of Finance, local authorities and the UK Treasury.”

            The Committee was advised that the City Growth and Regeneration Committee had considered a report on the steps which had been taken to date advocating for a city growth deal.  That Committee had agreed to commission a feasibility study on the detail of the growth deal, alongside developing a programme of work with London and Dublin.  The feasibility study and associated work would seek to:

·        Engage with partners, establishing governance and setting the geography for the deals;

·        Determine objectives, prioritisation criteria and identifying schemes;

·        Prioritise projects and funding/financing routes for delivery; and

·        Provide economic analysis, financial modelling and agreeing performance metrics, for example, additional in tax-take or increase in sustained employment opportunities.

            The Committee noted the contents of the motion and the decision which had been taken by the City Growth and Regeneration Committee to progress the matter.

            The Committee was reminded that the Council, at its meeting on 1st December, had referred the following notice of motion, which had been proposed by Councillor Attwood and seconded by Councillor Heading, to the Committee for consideration:

“This Council notes with concern the decision of the High Court which decided that bulky goods only could be removed from the Belfast Metropolitan Area in relation to Sprucefield.

The Council notes that the Minister for Infrastructure, Mr. Chris Hazzard, agreed on a proposal to have BMAP adopted without the bulky goods restriction.

The Council notes that the Javelin report stated, in August 2016, that Belfast needs to improve the quality of its shops and that a John Lewis store would be seen as one of the major catalysts to rejuvenate Belfast City Centre.

Belfast needs to be a strong city in many ways to support the rest of Northern Ireland.  This means that it has to have the right critical mass of offices, retail, residential, culture and arts to allow it to grow, not at the expense of other parts of Northern Ireland but in support of putting more money in everyone’s pockets and creating more jobs both in the city and in the many businesses in the external supply chain.  Belfast needs to compete with other cities if Northern Ireland is to be more financially successful.  This means that it needs more people living, working and visiting here.  It should be (according to its size) one of the top 10 cities in the UK but is currently only 16th in the retail rankings.  This is not good enough for Northern Ireland.

The Council believes that the decision of the High Court will have an adverse impact on Belfast and other town centres and supports the decision to appeal the decision of the High Court and will work with retailers and others to challenge this decision.”

            The Committee was advised that the Council had became a notice party to the remedies hearing and had asked the court not to endorse the proposed removal of the bulky goods restriction as it believed it was inappropriate and unlawful for the court to do so. 

Noted

            The Committee was reminded that, at the Council meeting on 1st December, Councillor McDonough-Brown had proposed the following:

“This Council expresses its profound disappointment in the decision of the Minister for Communities not to proceed with the Regeneration Bill and devolution of regeneration powers to local government.

The Council:

                         (i)      recognises that these powers would strengthen and enhance our ability to drive strategic regeneration activity, when used alongside community and land use planning;

                        (ii)      believes this decision to be in conflict with the entire direction and ethos of local government reform and to be a significant missed opportunity; and

                      (iii)      reiterates our support for the devolution of regeneration powers to local government; and calls for the Minister for Communities to meet with the Council with a view to reversing his decision and proceeding with the Bill.”

            The motioned had been seconded by Councillor Howard.

            The Committee was reminded further that, at the request of Councillor McDonough-Brown, the Council had agreed, with all forty-eight Members present and voting in support of the proposal, to suspend Standing Order 13(f) to enable the Council to debate point (iii) of the motion.  Subsequently, the Council had agreed to adopt point (iii) and, in accordance with Standing Order 13(f), had referred points (i) and (ii), without discussion, to the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee.

            The Committee was advised that, in considering the notice of motion, Members should be aware that in responding to the draft Programme for Government (PfG), which would be considered later in the meeting, the Council had formerly requested that the NI Executive commit within the PfG that the regeneration powers in-fact transfer and complement existing planning and economic development functions of councils.  The benefits of transferring important place-shaping regeneration functions, including comprehensive development schemes and compulsory purchase orders, was a key aspect of the recent Westminster and Stormont engagement and lobbying events.

            In the interim, direct engagement was also ongoing with the Department of Communities and the NI Executive to explore how the Council might utilise specific regeneration powers on behalf of the Department through an agency-type arrangement.  Such an approach would help unlock and progress prioritised regeneration and development schemes within the city and secure the necessary funding to deliver such schemes through innovative funding models, including potential public and private co-financing.  The Members would also be aware that a Memorandum of Understanding had been established between the Council and the Department for Communities to enable a joined up approach to be taken to development.

            The Committee noted parts (i) and (ii) of the motion and that part (iii) had already been agreed by the Council and noted the information which had been provided in relation to the Programme for Government response.

            The committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0     Purpose of Report

1.1       To update Members on the consultation underway on the provisional proposals emerging from the  ‘2018 Review of Parliamentary Constituencies’ and to outline for consideration a proposed response from Belfast City Council.  

2.0       Recommendations

2.1      The Committee is asked to note

·        the contents of the report and

·        that November Committee agreed a Council response should not be submitted to the public consultation.

3.0       Main Report

3.1       The 2018 Review of Parliamentary constituencies started on 24 February 2016.  In accordance with schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, the number of Parliamentary constituencies across the UK will reduce from 650 to 600.  In Northern Ireland, the decrease will be from 18 seats to 17 at the next Westminster elections, expected in 2020.  This will mean redrawing the existing constituency boundaries. The Act requires that Northern Ireland’s electorate (1,243,369 people at 1 December 2015) be divided into 17 constituencies utilising complete local government wards as building blocks.  The electorate of each constituency must also be within a 5 per cent variance of the UK electoral quota of 74,769 (ie. no less than 71,031 and no more than 78,507 people).

3.2       A Boundary Commissioner for Northern Ireland published on 6 September 2016 provisional recommendations for the new Parliamentary Constituencies within NI. Responses are sought by 28 November 2016.  The Commission is required to submit its report on final recommendations to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland no later than 1 October 2018.

3.3       Based on the proposals put forward, the current four Parliamentary Constituency covering Belfast will be reduced to three comprising of the following:

·        East Belfast - the only Belfast constituency proposed to retain its name. Would cover those wards which lie between the River Lagan and the eastern boundary of the City. This would mean transferring out the wards of Dundonald, Carrowreagh, Grahamsbridge, Ballyanwood and Enler; and transferring in those wards from Belfast South which lie between the River and the City boundary (Hillfoot, Cregagh, Ravenhill, Woodstock, Ormeau, Rosetta and Belvoir). Would have an electorate of 72,001.

·        Belfast North West - proposed new constituency which would retain Valley and Colinbridge from current Belfast North, transfer from Belfast West the wards of Fourth River, Ballygomartin, Clonard, Beechmount, Falls and Shankill; and transfer out those wards lying outside the City boundary (Whitehouse, Rathcoole, O’Neill, Carmoney Hill, Glebe, Glengormley). Would have an electorate of 71,266.

·        Belfast South West – proposed new constituency which would extend from the Lagan to the western boundary encompassing the whole of Dunmurry ward, Colin Glen, Turf Lodge, Ballymurphy, Falls Park, Blackstaff and Central. Would have an electorate of 73,643.

3.4       Elsewhere, eight constituencies would continue with minimal boundary changes; six new constituencies would be created, provisionally called Dalriada, Glenshane, North Tyrone, Upper Bann and Blackwater, West Antrim and West Down; and five names would disappear: Lagan Valley, East Londonderry,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3d

            The Chief Executives submitted for the Committees consideration the following report:

“1.0     Purpose of report

1.1       This report seeks to update Committee on the recent consultation on a further draft Programme for Government and a suite of associated draft delivery plans; and to enable Members to consider and agree a Council response to be submitted. The consultation ends on 23 December 2016.

2.0       Recommendations

2.1       The Committee is asked to:

·        note the contents of this report; and

·        consider and agree the proposed Council response to the draft PfG Framework

3.0       Main Report

3.1       The draft PfG is 170+ pages long and sets out 14 strategic outcomes, 48 indicators and is underpinned by 32 draft Delivery Plans, which the Executive states that  when taken together, set a clear direction of travel and enable continuous improvement on the essential components of societal wellbeing and improve quality of life. They touch upon every aspect of government including, for example: securing economic success; supporting job creation and employability; attainment of good health and education; investment; and creating confident and peaceful communities.

3.2       Whilst welcomed, the new OBA format has introduced a new level of complexity into the PfG consultation process compared to previous years with the introduction of detailed delivery plans.  For each of the PfG indicators, a named senior official has been identified who is responsible and accountable for leading the work to deliver the improvements identified and who will oversee the development of specific delivery plans.  Each delivery plan sets out the key delivery partners involved, and their role.

3.3       The PfG will be supported by an updated Investment Strategy, an Economic Strategy and a new Social Strategy – these key strategies will also be subject to consultation and engagement which we understand will commence later in the month.

3.4       Council officers have reviewed both the draft PFG and associated Delivery Plans in the context of the previous response submitted to the first the PfG Framework (June 2016), and the ambitious set out for the city in the Belfast Agenda.

3.5       Attached at Appendix 2 for Members consideration is a proposed draft Council response to the PfG which is set out in two sections

                                             (i)          The first relates to the overarching document and specifically the 14 listed outcomes and their associated issues, indicators and actions.

                                           (ii)          The second part sets out specific and detailed feedback on the emergent ‘Delivery Plans’ linked to the PFG outcomes and indicators. These comments will be submitted directly to the senior responsible officers for the relevant delivery plans.

3.6       (i) Overarching Document

            The response to the overarching document includes the high level issues which the Council would like to see reflected in the PfG and naturally contains many of the ‘key asks’ which the Council has developed over recent months and opportunities to co-design and deliver in partnership with the Executive and other partners. 

3.7       Where possible the response strives to reaffirm the importance of Belfast to the wider region and to demonstrate that a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4a

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0     Purpose of Report or Summary of main Issues

1.1        The Council’s Capital Programme is a rolling programme of investment which either improves existing Council facilities or provides new Council facilities.

2.0       Recommendations

2.1       The Committee is asked to;

-       note the contents of this report and the major achievements delivered under the Capital Programme over the past couple of months which has seen over £50million of projects completed across the city

-       note the Property & Projects Department is happy to arrange site visits for Members/ Party Groups to any capital programme project and in particular would advise Members to visit the new accommodation at 9 Adelaide, the new Olympia Leisure Centre and the Connswater Community Greenway

            Project Updates

-       note that the Council is progressing with Phase 4 of the Alleygating Programming and as part of this the supporting process of consultation is underway.  The Council is aware that areas in the former Lisburn and Castlereagh areas were not part of the previous alleygating phases and is therefore looking at these areas to assess provision and it is recommended that consultation is undertaken in these areas as part of the process which will allow these gates to quickly progress if future funding is received (either Council or other funding). Members are asked to note at this stage there is no budget for a future alley gating programme

-       Leisure Programme – agree to the demolition of the Clonduff Community Centre in line with the demolition works at Robinson given the reasons outlined in 3.2 below. Members are asked to note that officers will immediately progress discussions with the local community groups and Elected Members to ascertain the temporary provision that may be required to be put in place in the interim until the construction of the new centre. 

3.0      Main report

            Key Issues

3.1       The Council’s rolling Capital Programme is a significant programme with over £185m of projects recently completed or currently underway. Members will be aware that when projects are completed they transfer from the Property & Projects Department to the relevant client Department (City & Neighbourhoods or Development) under the stewardship of the People and Communities and City & Growth Committees as appropriate.  It is the role of the client department and the relevant standing Committee to manage the assets once completed. 

            Members are asked to note that over £50million of projects have either been completed in the past two months or are currently in the final stages of completion.  This is a major achievement in terms of delivery and in terms of staff performance. 

            Projects recently completed/in final stages of completion

·        Council accommodation – the new 9 Adelaide building, which will provide accommodation for over 800 officers, was officially handed over to the Council (Property & Projects Department) on 28th November.  This development is significant as it is the first purpose built Grade A accommodation in the city centre since the economic downturn and is a significant sign of the Council’s confidence in and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5a

            The Director of Property and Projects submitted for the Committee’s consideration the following report:

“1.0     Purpose of Report or Summary of main Issues

1.1        To update Members on a number of area related issues for Members consideration.

2.0       Recommendations

2.1       The Committee is asked to;

            AWG minutes

·        approve the most recent round AWG Minutes (South – 28th November and West – 24th November) North and East AWG) Thursday 8th December

      Local Investment Fund

·        agree the recommendations from the West and East AWGs in relation to LIF funding (Section 3.2 – 3.3).

·        note the additional projects which have been scored (Section 3.4) which have met the minimum threshold and agree that these are progressed to due-diligence

            Belfast Investment Fund

·        agree the recommendations from the East AWG in relation to BIF funding (Section 3.5)

3.0       Main report

            KEY ISSUES

3.1       AREA WORKING GROUP UPDATES

            Members agreed in June that the Area Working Group minutes would be taken into the SP&R Committee for approval going forward in line with the Council’s commitment to openness and transparency and to ensure a consistency in approach to the other Member-led Working Groups. Members are asked to approve the most recent round AWG Minutes (South – 28th November and West – 24th November) as attached at Appendix 1.  Members are asked to note that the North and East AWGs held their meetings on Thursday 8th December – the minutes for this are not yet available however the relevant funding decisions from the meetings are included within this report.

            LOCAL INVESTMENT FUND UPDATE 

3.2       WEST AWG - The West AWG at its meeting on 24th November, made the following recommendations for the consideration of the SP&R Committee in relation to their LIF subject to the required criteria being met.

3.3       EAST AWG - The East AWG at its meeting on 8th December, made the following recommendations for the consideration of the SP&R Committee in relation to their LIF

            The East AWG agreed that officers engage with a number of other projects which had been proposed in order to assess them for their feasibility with further details to be brought back to a future meeting.

            Projects recommended to proceed to due-diligence

3.4       Members are asked to note that 4 LIF2 projects which had previously been agreed for in principle funding (SLIF064 – Taughmonagh Community Forum; NLIF2-13 – Intercomm; NLIF2-14 – Star Neighbourhood Centre and WLIF2-22–Farset International) have now been scored by officers (see Appendix 2) and have successfully met the minimum threshold. It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5b

            Percy Street Community Centre – Lease Renewal

            The Committee approved the renewal of the Lease for Percy Street Community Centre for a further 5 years with the Trustees of Lower Shankill Groups Welfare Committee.

            10-18 Cromac Street and 33-37 Market Street Belfast –

            Disposal of Ground Rent Interest

            The Committee approved the disposal of the Council’s ground rent interest in land at 10-18 Cromac Street and 33-37 Market Street, Belfast.

            Stewart Street – Proposed Agreement for Easement

            with Northern Ireland Electricity at Stewart Street

            The Committee granted approval to enter into an Agreement for Easement with NIE in respect of land at Stewart Street for the purposes of facilitating the development of a community garden and to provide potential pedestrian access to the Council’s Gasworks Estate.

            The Committee considered a report which sought approval to transfer to the Council land at Springfield Dam which was owned by the Department for Communities (DfC) following expenditure of c £0.5m by the DfC on capital work to upgrade the area.

            The Committee was advised that the DfC owned land at Springfield Dam.  It had commissioned AECOM to undertake a feasibility study in partnership with the Council to develop high level concept plans for the site.  The Springfield Dam site shared a boundary with the Council’s Springfield Park and there was an opportunity to create a larger enhanced and integrated open space at the location.  The feasibility study produced two options; the estimated construction cost for Option 1 was £448,513.71 and for Option 2 was £1,215,511.01. The Department had advised that it had funding available in the current financial year for Option 1 and it was keen to start spending the estimated total construction costs for Option 1 before 31st March, 2017.   If expenditure was committed and commenced prior to that date, it had advised that the full cost could be accrued by the Department for Communities in the financial year 2016/17.  There was no funding currently available for option 2.

            The Director of Property and Projects reported that Option 1 comprised the basic framework to improve access and provide for recreational use of the site.  The proposed paths would provide for circulation between the Dam and Springfield Park and also link into proposed new entrances to the site.  That would facilitate ‘loop’ walks in the locality.  The proposed recreational facilities included a proposed building for classroom/training/recreational use, fishing stands and an activity trail.

            He reminded the Committee that, at its meeting of 21st October, it had agreed in principle to the transfer of land and property assets from the Department of Communities, or other central government bodies as appropriate, upon completion of identified projects, subject to the conditions of transfer as set out in the report and specifically on agreement on revenue budgets at the time of transfer, with up to three years agreed maintenance costs being provided as a minimum, depending of the nature of the asset.

            The following Heads of Terms had provisionally been agreed with DfC in respect to the transfer of Springfield Dam to the Council, subject to Committee and subsequently Council approval:

-       DfC to provide BCC with copies of satisfactory title and confirmation that there are no restrictions, onerous conditions or charges in the title which would preclude the proposed works.

-       BCC will appoint consultants to design Option 1 of the Springfield Dam project.

-       BCC will secure planning approval and statutory approvals as required for the scheme.

-       BCC will appoint the contractor to complete the works.

-       DfC will fund all costs including design, statutory approvals and construction.

-       BCC will agree to take ownership of the site at nil cost to the Council on completion of Option 1 of the works.

-       BCC to be represented on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5d

            The Committee considered the following report:

“1.0     Purpose of report or summary of main issues

1.1        To seek the Committee’s approval to implement the proposals set out below in relation to the operation of the new Exhibition Area in City Hall.

2.0       Recommendations

2.1       The Committee is asked to;

·        Adopt the proposals in respect of the operation of the new Exhibition Area as set out at below

·        Agree to charge an entrance fee for commercial bookings broadly in the order of £2 per person, but with discounts available in respect of the provision of multi-lingual head-sets when booked as a group, in order to encourage use and enhance income.

3.0       Main report

3.1       Members will be aware that a paper was presented to the Committee in November 2016 seeking approval for a new Reception arrangement for the Exhibition. This proposal involved the removal of the former PUP room area as the main reception for the Exhibition, to be replaced by a bespoke new facility on the main floor inside the front entrance.

3.2       Following some discussion on the matter concerns were expressed by some members that the proposal may create un-necessary bottlenecks on the main marble area, and it was referred back for officers to re-consider the proposal to see what alternatives may exist.  Officers had also noted that there would be noise impact on the Lavery Room. 

3.3       Officers have reviewed the proposals as requested, but have concluded that in any event insufficient time now remains to prepare alternative proposals and get furniture etc ordered.  Consequently the original proposal, which uses the former PUP party room as the main entrance and reception area, must be re-instated on the basis previously agreed.

3.4       The proposal to create a new reception area on the marble was developed primarily to enhance the potential income to be derived from the sale of merchandising.

            By contrast, using the original reception area will mean that no merchandising can be sold at all on Saturdays or Sundays or on any evening (because any such sales will now have to be carried out by staff at the main Reception as opposed to the dedicated Exhibitions facility).  Therefore it is likely that overall merchandising sales will be adversely affected.

3.5       There remains a concern that the original proposal will itself inevitably create bottlenecks, given that it is only 1.4m wide at its narrowest point and must provide for disabled access etc. while the proposal in relation to the marble would have allowed for more effective management of a build-up of visitors (including the use of the former PUP room and the room opposite for waiting areas), and the council’s principal consultants Redhead Ltd had expressed their agreement with this approach.

3.6       However, as outlined above, the facility is due to be complete and to initiate a series of ‘soft’ opening events during April 2017, and consequently officers do not believe that it is now feasible to develop alternative options, obtain Heritage Service approval and amend the overall project  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5e

            The Director of Finance and Resources submitted for the Committee’s information the following report:

“1.0     Purpose of Report or Summary of main Issues

1.1       This report presents the half year treasury management position for the Council as at the end of September, 2016/17.

2.0       Recommendations

2.1       The Committee is asked to;

·        Note the report.

3.0       Main report

            Local Government Finance Act (NI) 2011

3.1       The Local Government Finance Act (NI) 2011, and the supporting Prudential and Treasury Codes introduced a new capital financing system and legislative framework within which the Council manages its finances.

3.2       The Council’s Treasury Management policy, developed in response to the new legislative framework, states that the Council will receive reports on its treasury management policies, practices and activities, including, as a minimum, an annual strategy, a mid-year review and an annual report after the close of the financial year.

3.3       This report represents the mid-year review as required by the policy and is structured to highlight key changes to the Council’s capital activity and the actual and proposed treasury management activity.

            Prudential Indicators

            The Local Government Finance Act (NI) 2011and CIPFA’s Prudential Code require the Council to set and monitor a series of Prudential Indicators (PIs).  The key objective of which is to ensure that, within a clear framework, the capital investment plans of the Council are affordable, prudent and sustainable.

3.4       Capital Expenditure Prudential Indicator:

            The original estimate reflects the capital budgets that were approved by the Council on 22 March 2016, whilst the revised estimate reflects the capital expenditure that is forecast to be spent by 31 March 2017. The increase in the forecast for this year is mainly due to the re-profiling of the capital programme. As the overall total has not changed this does not affect the financing of the capital programme.

3.5       Other Prudential Indicators

            As can be seen above the CFR estimate has increased. This is due to the increase in the revised estimate of capital expenditure in the current year’s capital programme. The Council is forecast to remain within the Authorised Borrowing Limit, and the CFR indicates that over the medium term borrowings will only be for a capital purpose.

3.6       Treasury Management

            The Council’s Treasury Management Policy and Strategy adopt the key principles of CIPFA’s Code of Practice and have taken account of the guidance issued by the Department of The Environment on Local Government Investments.

3.7       Debt Activity: During the first half of 2016/17 the Council has taken advantage of internal borrowing, i.e. cash surpluses, to fund capital expenditure.

3.8       In addition, loan principal repayments of £1,573,854 have been made during the same period.

3.9       The level of external borrowings at 30 September 2016 is £33,188,655.

3.10     Investment Strategy 2016-17: The primary objective of the Council’s investment strategy is to safeguard the repayment of the principal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6a

            The Committee:

(1)   approved the public advertisement and acceptance of tenders as listed in appendix 1, table 1 below, through the Council’s electronic procurement system; and

(2)   granted delegated authority to the appropriate Director, using pre-agreed criteria, to accept the most economically advantageous tender, and allow extensions where contracts were under review as per table 2:

Appendix 1 - Schedule of tenders for consideration

Table 1 - New tenders

Table 2 - Contracts for extension of contract period

The Committee approved and adopted the minutes of the meeting of the Shared City Partnership held on 5th December, 2016. 

            The Committee was advised that an application had been received from the 36th (Ulster) Division Memorial Association Arts and Cultural Society for the use of the City Hall for a lecture and exhibition to mark the centenary of the role of the 36th (Ulster) Division and the 16th Irish Division in the Battle of Messines.

            The Committee was reminded that, where a proposed event could be held to impact upon the Council’s programme in relation to the Decade of Centenaries, then the opportunity was normally taken to seek the views of the Diversity Working Group before presenting the request to the Committee.  However, the Working Group was currently not meeting whilst discussions took place on its future role and remit.  Accordingly, the request was being presented to the Committee.

            The Democratic Services Manager pointed out that the Council’s policy on use of the City Hall, whilst not specifically ruling out exhibitions and lectures, did not encourage such use as the functions rooms were not seen as being ideal for that use.  However, given that the request was to mark a significant centenary, the Committee might feel that the request should be acceded to.  The cost of the provision of tea, coffee and biscuits for guests was estimated at £750 and that could be met within existing budgets.

            The committee agreed to accede to the request and approved the provision of hospitality as outlined.

            The Committee noted the contents of a report which provided information in relation to Information Governance training for Elected Members which would take place in February, 2017.

            The Committee approved and adopted the minutes of the meeting of the Budget and Transformation Panel of 8th December, 2016.

            The Committee approved and adopted the minutes of the meeting of the Audit and Risk Panel of 6th December, 2016.

            The Committee noted the minutes of the meeting of the Active Belfast Board of 5th December, 2016.

            The Committee approved and adopted the minutes of the meeting of the Member Development Working Group of 21st November, 2016.

            The Committee adopted the recommendations for the requests for the use of the City Hall and the provision of hospitality as set out below:

Appendix

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0     Purpose of Report

1.1        The purpose of the report is to:

-       Update members on the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency’s (NISRA) current consultation on proposals to update the Multiple Deprivation Measure (NIMDM 2017).

2.0       Recommendations

2.1       The Committee is asked to:

-       Note the details of the consultation, the deadline for responses and the event in Belfast on 19 December; and

-       Consider the initial observations at paragraph 3.6 which will form the basis of the council’s response to NISRA’s consultation. A copy of the draft response will be brought to January’s SP&R committee.

3.0       Key issues

            Background

3.1       The Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA) has been commissioned by the Statistics Co-ordinating Group (SCG) of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, which comprises senior policy officials from Government Departments, to undertake an update of the current Northern Ireland Multiple Deprivation Measure (NIMDM 2010).

3.2       The updated measures will be hugely important to a wide variety of interested parties and users. They will continue to play a pivotal role in both informing the targeting of resources to the most deprived areas in Northern Ireland and the monitoring of the spatial impact of policy interventions. The current aim is to publish the updated measures in mid-2017, which will be referred to as NIMDM 2017 throughout this report.

3.3       In arriving at the proposals, consideration has been given to each of the 36 recommendations that arose following the last update in producing the NIMDM 2010. Positive action has been taken in respect of 17 recommendations, which it is considered will improve the updated measures. Six recommendations cannot be advanced at present due to data availability and/or quality issues and will be carried over. One recommendation was considered out of scope for this update, and a further 9 recommendations were rejected by the domain expert groups as not aligning with the agreed indicator principles. The remaining 3 recommendations will be addressed after the initial dissemination phase of the project.

3.4       In summary, the NIMDM 2010 consisted of 30 indicators, 20 of which are proposed to be retained in the updated measures. A further 7 are proposed to be modified in line with newly available data, while 3 are proposed to be omitted due to data quality and/or availability issues. A total of 12 new indicators are also proposed, as a result of addressing the 2010 NIMDM recommendations or as a result of new information having become available.

3.5       The consultation will run for 8 weeks and closes at midnight on 15 January 2017. Should members be interested they can register to attend a supporting Information Session that is being held in Belfast on Monday 19^th December (venue to be confirmed).

3.6       Council Observations

·        The consultation document states that this is an update to the 2010 measure of deprivation and any significant revisions to the methodology are outside of the scope of this work.  The council would suggest that with 12  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8g

            The Committee considered the following report:

“1.0     Purpose of Report or Summary of Main Issues

1.1            To seek Members’ approval of the council’s response to the Consultation on Northern Ireland response to the Apprenticeship Levy. 

2.0       Recommendations

2.1       The Committee is asked to:

·        Approve the council’s consultation response for submission to the Department for the Economy in order to meet the response deadline of 23 December 2016. 

3.0       Main report

3.1       Key Issues

            The Apprenticeship Levy will impact on private and public sector employers in Northern Ireland with a pay bill of over £3million.  The levy, which is set at a rate of 0.5 per cent of an employer’s pay bill, will be payable along with income tax and National Insurance through a PAYE system on a monthly basis from May 2017.  Large employers such as Belfast City Council will have a levy allowance of £15,000 per year to offset against the levy that they have paid

3.2       The consultation exercise seeks employers’ views on five questions:

            Q1.      What do you think are the main issues for Northern Ireland employers from the introduction of the Levy?

            Q2.      As a result of the Levy, what factors should the Department take intoaccount to ensure appropriate training support is available in Northern Ireland?

            Q3.      Will the Levy have an impact on your recruitment of apprenticeships?  In what way?

            Q4.      As a result of the Levy would you be more likely to use the programmes described in Annex B? In what way?

            Q5.      Do you have any further comments on the introduction of the UK wide Apprenticeship Levy?

3.3       The council’s draft responses to these five questions are set out in Appendix 1, but the key overriding message set out in this proposed response is that since 2005, Belfast City Council has offered 37 full apprentice opportunities for electricians, fleet technicians, joiners, painters, gardeners and since the launch of our Investment Programme in 2012, the council has provided over 1000 work placements and delivered 6 pre- recruitment and training programmes for job opportunities ring fenced to the long term unemployed. We are working to build on this success by co-designing and working with community planning partners and central government through a ‘local works’ approach to remove the barriers of those furthest removed from the labour market into employment – a key strand of the Programme for Government.

3.4       and the Council’s community plan around economic inactivity and inequalities will however require significant resources and this new, mandatory taxation could negatively impact on the ability of the council to do this work.

3.5       Funds should therefore be devolved locally in order to ensure that people get the right skills, experience and advice to move into and progress in work, helping to remove inequalities and deprivation where it is most needed, particularly important given the likely impact of welfare reform.

            Financial & Resource Implications

3.6       Belfast City Council’s levy is estimated at £455,000 per annum. In financial terms, however, its description as ‘Apprentice Levy’ is debateable,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8h

            The Democratic Services Manager reported that the Northern Ireland Office and the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland were currently consulting on the options for the future delivery of Electoral Services in Northern Ireland.  He reminded the Members that the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Graham Shields, had attended a special meeting of the Committee on 11th November to answer Members questions on the consultation exercise.  The Committee had agreed at that meeting that a draft response be prepared and submitted for consideration.

            The Democratic Services Manager pointed out that it was acknowledged that there might well be different views amongst the political parties as to whether or not the options for consideration in the review would be acceptable in a regional context and, therefore, the response dealt only with the practical issues which would arise for Belfast City Council should the proposals contained in the consultation paper proceed.  A copy of the draft response is set out below:

Appendix 1

Belfast City Council Response to the Consultation on the Future Delivery of Electoral Services in Northern Ireland

Introduction

Belfast City Council welcomes the opportunity to provide a response to the consultation on the future delivery of electoral services in Northern Ireland.

The Council recognises that there may well be different views on the regional impact of the proposals amongst the political parties in Northern Ireland.  The Council notes that the Northern Ireland Assembly passed the following motion in June, 2016:

“This Assembly notes with concern the proposals from the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to close regional electoral offices in Ballymena, Banbridge, Londonderry, Newtownabbey, Newtownards and Omagh; believes that this will damage democracy in Northern Ireland, lead to fewer people on the electoral register and to a diminished role for the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland in local schools and communities; and calls on the Secretary of State, the Northern Ireland Office and the Electoral Office for Northern Ireland to retain and fund all regional offices currently under threat of closure”.

Accordingly, this response is from Belfast City Council alone and should not be taken to represent the views of all or any of the political parties represented on it.

Digital Registration and Enhancing Local Services

The Council welcomes the proposals to move to digital registration in Northern Ireland as it considers that this has the potential, combined with the traditional methods of registration, to maximise the opportunities for citizens to participate in the future elections and referendums.  This will be particularly attractive to younger people.

The Council would urge that all reasonable steps must be taken when designing the digital registration system to provide reassurance that electoral fraud will be eliminated.

The Council notes that the proposals do not envisage the provision of counter services in Belfast, unlike other parts of Northern Ireland where several District Councils may be required to undertake the provision of advice and support.  Should this change and should the Council be requested to provide this service, then the Council would strongly be of  the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8i

            The Chief Executive had submitted for the Committee’s consideration the following report:

“1.0     Purpose of Report

1.1            The purpose of the report is to:

-       Update members on the Education Authority’s (EA) current consultation on their draft strategic area plan for school provision. 

2.0       Recommendations

2.1       The Committee is asked to:

-       Note the details of the consultation and approve a high level response as detailed in paragraph 3.10.

3.0       Key issues

3.1       The Education Authority (EA) has launched a consultation on Northern Ireland’s first regional area plan for education, ‘Providing Pathways 2017-2020’. The plan aims to ensure that all pupils have access to a broad and balanced curriculum that meets their needs in sustainable schools that are of the right type, of the right size, located in the right place. It sets out the key priorities and objectives for the EA, the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) and other sectoral bodies, in light of the Department of Education’s goals to create sustainable schools throughout Northern Ireland.

3.2       The Area Plan for 2017-2020 establishes Local Planning Districts which align with the 11 Local Government Districts, allowing education to make a contribution to the 11 LGD Community Plans.

3.3       For each Local Government District the plan sets out:

·        Population projections;

·        Summary data for Primary Schools;

·        Summary Data for Post-primary schools;

·        Key issues emerging from analysis of current local provision;

·        What will we do?

3.4       The Belfast LG district data is set out below:

·        The population in the age range 0-15 years is projected to increase by 7.6% by 2024.

·        The population in the age range 16-19 years is projected to decrease by 1.4% by 2024.

3.5       Summary Data for Primary Schools

3.6       Summary Data for Post-Primary Schools

3.7       The Plan identifies the following key issues emerging from their analysis of current provision across Belfast:

·        Number of available places

·        Location of available places

·        Schools facing sustainability challenges

·        Equitable access to Entitlement Framework pathways

·        Potential for Irish Medium and Integrated school development

·        Potential opportunities for shared education

·        Need to establish learning support provision in mainstream schools

3.8       In order to address the issues, the EA says that it will develop proposals to:

·        ensure that school places are located as required;

·        address school provision where sustainability is an issue (primary and post-primary) - (reviews will take account of six Sustainable Schools criteria – see below);

·        establish additional learning support and autism specific provision within primary and post-primary schools;

·        ensure equitable access to the Entitlement Framework pathways at Key Stage 4;

·        reconfigure primary school provision to reduce the number of available places in schools;

·        reconfigure post-16 provision to give pupils equitable access to the Entitlement Framework pathways in collaboration with the Further Education sector;

·        encourage and facilitate sustainable Irish Medium and Integrated schools; and

·        promote shared education solutions which provide sustainable schools.

3.9       Sustainability criteria

            The six criteria of the Sustainable Schools policy are:

1.     Quality educational experience

2.     Stable enrolment trends

3.     Sound financial position

4.     Strong leadership and management by Board of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8j