Agenda and minutes

            Apologies for inability to attend were reported from the High Sheriff (Councillor M. Campbell), Alderman R. Newton and Councillors Mac Giolla Mhín and A. Newton.

            Councillor McCarthy declared an interest in Item No. 6b, Sites at River Terrace – Rent Review, in so far as he was a member of the Managing Committee of St. John Vianney Youth Centre.

            The Director of Property and Projects reminded the Committee that an update on the proposed development at Forthriver had been presented to the Committee at its meeting on 25th April.  At that meeting, approval had been granted to the project being progressed on the basis of a Development Brief process, subject to a successful European Regional Development Fund grant application outcome.  The Members had been advised of the stages in the funding application process and it had been noted that the next step required would be the submission of a scoping document to Invest NI for consideration.  In addition, the Committee had been informed that a further report would be submitted in due course, following consideration by Invest NI of the scoping document, seeking further approvals in relation to the proposed Development Brief criteria and process, as well as advising on the financial arrangements.

            The Director of Property and Projects reported that, subsequent to the report having been issued to the Committee, discussions had been held with representatives of the Department of Energy, Trade and Investment and, as a result, it had become evident that the only means by which the Council would be guaranteed the £4 million European Regional Development funding towards the project was for the Council to undertake the construction of the building itself.  He explained that the Council would undertake to build the premises and retain it in its ownership, however, a separate contract would be developed for another agency to operate the scheme.

            After discussion, the Committee agreed that the Council undertake the construction of the Forthriver Innovation Centre, following which a separate contract would be drawn up to seek expressions of interest for a third party to operate the building.

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0       Relevant Background Information 

1.1       The Local Investment Fund (LIF) has been developed to support the delivery of key regeneration projects in neighbourhoods and also as a means for Members to connect with local communities, in preparation for their formal role in community planning under RPA.

1.2       At its meeting on 24 August 2012, Committee agreed to support in principle 29 preliminary recommendations from the Area Working Groups (AWGs) up to a total value of £1,454,000.  **Approval for the Gray’s Lane Play Park proposal which had been recommended for funding by the North Area Working Group was deferred. This has been referred back to the North AWG.  The recommended funding amount for this project was £85,000. 

            This is in addition to the 6 preliminary recommendations which the Committee agreed at its meeting on 22nd June.  To date £2,244,852 has been committed under the Local Investment Fund.

            This was subject to confirmation of detailed costings and sustainability as well as seeking authority from the relevant Committees on leasing arrangements. 

2.0       Key Issues

2.1       AWG Recommendations on LIF proposals

            At the most recent round of AWG meetings, officers updated Members on the external meetings they have facilitated on the LIF proposals. In accordance with Council procedures, individual Members declared any conflicts of interest and this was noted in the minutes of the AWG.  Members are asked to note that only the South and East AWGs have met since the 24th August and put forward project recommendations. 

            On the basis of the information presented, the South and East AWGs have made the following recommendations for the consideration of the Committee:

            All of the above have been assessed against the prioritization matrix and the summary has been circulated. It is recommended that Committee approves the above projects subject to confirmation of costs, clarification of legal issues, sustainability etc.

            Financial Governance arrangements for the payments of LIF projects

2.2       A separate report on the financial governance arrangements for the Local Investment Fund is being presented to Committee today. 

            Feasibility Fund

2.3       All of the AWGs have flagged potential projects for the Feasibility Fund as agreed previously by the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee.  A separate paper on the Feasibility fund is also on the agenda for Members consideration.

            Update on Area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3b

            The Committee was advised that, having approved a number of Local Investment Fund projects, it was now required to put in place financial governance arrangements in order to support the payment of Local Investment Fund project monies.  The proposed arrangements had been drawn up in a way that provided sufficient flexibility to meet the needs of individual projects and Sponsor Groups whilst, at the same time, exercising good stewardship of public money and ensuring that value for money was delivered.

            The Director of Finance and Resources explained that governance arrangements had been developed to support the three main ways that projects would be delivered which was as follows:

(1)     Council-led and Delivered Projects – the Council would procure and project manage the delivery of the project, as if it were its own project within the capital programme;

(2)     Fully/Partially Funded by the Council and Delivered by the Supported Group – the Council would only provide financial support to the project and the Sponsor Group would have responsibility for delivery; and

(3)     Council would be a Funding Partner and the Project is led by another Funding Partner – the Council would only provide financial support to the project and would rely on the control requirements exercised by the lead partner.

            The Director explained that the delivery option for each project would be considered on the basis of the following factors:

·         Complexity of the project

·         Group’s experience and capacity to undertake a capital project, including Scheme Design, Procurement/Tender Process, Project Management/Delivery, Quality Assurance and Health and Safety;

·         Opportunity to build capacity within supported group

·         Opportunity to promote community ownership and buy-in to the project

·         Opportunity to enhance the Council’s leadership role

·         Level of flexibility required in delivery approach

·         Level of internal financial and technical resources required and available

·         Potential reputational damage of project failure

·         Extent of involvement of other partners

            The Director explained further that a flow chart of the Local Investment Fund process from initial proposal to final delivery had been circulated for the information of the Members.  He pointed out that, in summary, for each project there would be a Funding Agreement in place which must be signed by the Council and the Sponsor Group before any money could be released.  The Agreement would include a payment schedule, general terms and conditions, special terms and conditions, security of tenure, deed of covenant and procurement requirements.  During the course of the project a number of physical, financial and procurement checks would be carried out by Council officers.

            The Committee approved the categorisation of the projects for delivery purposes and the financial governance arrangements as outlined.

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting of 22nd June, it had approved the ring fencing of £500,000 of the capital financing budget for 2012/2013 to provide for the establishment of a Feasibility Fund.  The Fund would enable initial feasibility work to be undertaken on proposed projects to bring them to a point where Members could decide if they should be progressed as Capital, Local Investment Fund or City Investment Fund schemes.

            The Director of Finance and Resources explained that, in order to support the management of the Feasibility Fund, governance arrangements needed to be put in place.  He pointed out that Fund was intended to be used to move projects to a stage where Members could make decisions regarding future finance.  That work might involve the preparation of a strategic outline case up to, and including, the completion of an economic appraisal and a recommendation as to the preferred project option.  Any feasibility work undertaken would be commissioned and undertaken by the Council through the Project Management Unit “Call Off” contracts.  He pointed out that officers were currently working on the development of the policy framework for the City Investment Fund, one element of which would be the allocation of feasibility funding for those projects.

            It was anticipated that once the Capital Investment Fund was fully operational, the main use of the Feasibility Fund would be to finance feasibility studies for those projects, however, in the interim period there was an opportunity to use the 2012/13 feasibility budget to progress feasibility work on a number of Local Investment Fund proposals.  Given the limited financial and technical resources available, it was recommended that the maximum number of feasibility proposals which could be recommended by each Area Working Group for projects under the Local Investment Fund should, at this stage, be limited to five.

            After discussion, the Committee approved the proposed governance arrangements for the Feasibility Fund and agreed that each Area Working Group consider and recommend to the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee in November, 2012, a maximum of five Local Investment Fund proposals per area which should proceed to feasibility study stage.

            The Committee was informed that the Council had received notification that it had been awarded £13.7 million by the Department of Culture, Media and Sports as part of its Super-Connected Cities initiative.  The Director of Finance and Resources reported that the Council had received the full amount which it had bid for and that London was the only city which had received a higher amount than that which had been bid for.  He explained that the Council had committed £3 million as part of its Investment Programme and the private sector would commit an estimated £8 million which would bring the total investment in the project to almost £25 million.

            The Director circulated for the information of the Members a copy of the submission document and explained what the challenge for the Council now was to deliver the Belfast Super-Connected Programme within the deadline of 31st March, 2015 set by the Department of Culture, Media and Sports.  A key element of the work would be the procurement of the superfast and ultrafast broadband infrastructure and the Wi-Fi network.  In order to ensure that State Aid rules were complied with and that the Council received the best value possible through the contracts let, it was proposed that the Council acquired specialist telecoms expertise.  He pointed out that, if the Committee was minded to agree to the use of external telecoms assistance, legal advice would be sought to determine the best procurement option for the Council.  In addition, it was imperative that the Council procure that expertise as soon as possible given the critical timescales and, therefore, it was proposed that authority be delegated to the Chief Executive to procure the external telecoms support based on the legal advice when received.

            After discussion, during which the Committee extended its congratulations to those officers who had been involved in the production and submission of the bid which had received the funding, the Committee agreed that:

(1)     as part of the process to progress the project, contact be made with the Chief Digital Officer of New York City;

(2)     a letter be forwarded to relevant officers and supporting organisations thanking them for their assistance in submitting the bid;

(3)     an appropriate reception be held for those staff who had been involved in producing and submitting the bid;

(4)     the Council acquire specialist telecoms expertise to assist with the procurement of the superfast and ultafast broadband infrastructure and the Wi-Fi network; and

(5)     authority be delegated to the Chief Executive to proceed with the procurement of the external telecoms expertise based on the advice received.

            The Committee noted the minutes of the meetings of the Party Leaders Forum of 7th June and 2nd August.

            The Committee considered the undernoted requests which had been received for the use of the City Hall and the provision of hospitality:

            The Committee approved and adopted the minutes of the meeting of the Members’ Development Steering Group of 29th August.

            The Committee was reminded that Standing Order 1 required the monthly Council meeting to be held on the first day of each month except on a Bank Holiday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday.  That would mean that the first Council meeting of the next calendar year would be scheduled to be held on Wednesday, 2nd January, 2013 at 6.00 p.m.

            The Democratic Services Manager reported that, in previous years, that date had been considered to be within the festive or holiday period and Members had suggested it might be more appropriate to hold the meeting later in the month.  It was therefore proposed that the Council meeting be rescheduled for Monday, 7th January, 2013 at 6.00 p.m.  He pointed out that, in order to keep clear the Committee schedule for the first week in January, any meetings normally scheduled for that week would be rescheduled as appropriate.

            The Committee agreed that the first Council meeting in 2013 be rescheduled to Monday, 7th January at 6.00 p.m.

            The Committee was advised that the Lord Mayor had agreed to host an event for the United Christian Broadcasters in celebration of its three years of digital broadcasting in Northern Ireland and to recognise the impact that the radio station had made on many of its listeners.  The event was scheduled to take place on Monday, 19th November, 2012. 

            The Democratic Services Manager explained that, initially, the event was due to be held in the Lord Mayor’s Parlour with a small number of people to mark the achievements of the station.  However, as word spread amongst supporters and listeners of the station, the organisers had approached the Lord Mayor to identify if it would be possible to have a larger event should numbers increase.  The organisers had now been able to advise of the number of people who would wish to attend the event and mark the important occasion should it be possible to have it in a larger room.  The invited audience would include political figures, business and community representatives, strategic partners from across Belfast and beyond.  The celebratory event would include speeches, interviews and music.

            Accordingly, the authority of the Committee was being sought for the Lord Mayor to host the event in the Banqueting Hall in order to accommodate the increased numbers who now wished to participate.

            The Committee granted the authority sought.

            The Committee approved and adopted the minutes of the meeting of the Budget and Transformation Panel of 13th September.

            The Committee adopted the minutes of the meeting of the Audit Panel of 18th September.

            The Committee was advised that this item had been withdrawn from the agenda.

Noted.

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0       Relevant Background Information

1.1       In June 2012 the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee agreed that a business case should be brought back regarding the use of iPads by Members. This report demonstrates both the efficiencies that can be achieved through the use of iPads by Members and the opportunities they provide for alternative forms of citizen engagement. This paper also considers the implementation issues associated with an iPad roll out drawing on the experience of local authorities where iPads have already been introduced.

2.0       Key Issues

2.1       The table below summarises the costs and savings relating to the introduction of iPads over a three year period. From the table below it can be seen that the net savings over a three year period would be £178,300.

            Costs

2.2       The initial cost of purchasing 64 iPads (32GB and suitable suite of software, detail of which have been circulated, will be £32,300.) A recurring monthly charge of £12.77 will be incurred per device for the 3G connection which will provide 3GB of data per month equalling a further cost of £9,800 per year.

            Savings

2.3       Internal Printing – the Council spends approximately £36,000 annually on printing Committee Books and Council Minutes. If Members decide to use the iPad to access these documents then savings in printing materials would amount to £30,000. This would allow for a small number of Committee Books and Council Minutes books still to be printed.

2.4       External Printing - the reduction in time spent by Reprographics printing these internal documents would enable print jobs currently being done externally to be handled internally by Reprographics.  Taking into account the materials and resources required for these jobs it is calculated that up to £50,000 could be saved annually.

Additional Benefits

2.5       In addition to the financial savings there are also benefits in terms of improved communication through the use of mobile emailing, video calls, social networking and instant access to online information, such as websites and electronic documents.

2.6       One of the key benefits outlined by councils that have already implemented iPads is the opportunity for Members to engage more effectively with citizens. It is proposed that the Council trials a new application called ‘My Council Services’ as part of the iPad roll out, if agreed.

            Implementation Issues

            Training and support for members

2.7       Should the provision of iPads be agreed, it is important that members receive the necessary training and support in order to get the most out of the technology.  Based on feedback from other councils who have embarked upon similar initiatives it appears that a range of training  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5d

It was reported that, in accordance with Standing Order 55 and the authority delegated to him, the Director of Finance and Resources had authorised the appointment of a number of members of staff who were related to existing officers of the Council.

            The Committee noted the appointments.

            The Committee noted the contents of a report in relation to Fernhill House at Glencairn and agreed that, on account of the complexities and uncertainties which would face the Council in relation to obtaining forfeiture of the 1993 lease and regarding the future management of the property, to allow the Department for Social Development and the Belfast Regeneration Office to take whatever action they felt was appropriate to recover their grant monies, or a part thereof, and authorised Council officers to keep a watching brief with regard to any future disposal of the property.

            (Councillor McCarthy left the meeting while this item was under discussion.)

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1        Relevant Background Information

1.1       By two separate leases the Council provided two adjoining plots of land at River Terrace to the Trustees of St. John Vianney YC and the Trustees of St. Malachy’s Parish for the respective provision of a Youth Club and a Pre-School Playgroup. 

1.2       The St. John Vianney YC site comprises approximately 0.3 acres and is held by the Trustees on a 99 year lease from 1 November 1985.  The lease requires use of the site in furtherance of the purposes of St John Vianney Youth Club.  The initial (1985) rent contained in the lease was £600 per annum.

1.3       The St. Malachy’s Parish site comprises approximately 0.25 acres and is held by the Trustees on a 91 year lease from 1 November 1993.  The lease requires use of the site for St Malachy’s Parish Pre-School Playgroup or for such other parochial purposes as the Trustees shall consider fit and appropriate.  The initial (1993) rent contained in the lease was £645 per annum.

1.4       Both leases contain provision for the review of the annual rents every five years.  On each occasion the reviewed rents are to be based on the then current market rental value of the site (i.e. site without buildings) but taking into account the terms of the respective leases.  The terms of the leases restrict use to very specific purposes, however it is considered the levels of rent should be broadly similar to other community based rents payable in respect of other sites leased by the Council for community type purposes.  Council officers have endeavoured to adhere to these levels in discussion of the outstanding rent reviews with the representatives of St John Vianney YC and St Malachy’s Parish.  Neither of the two leases contain a time-limit within which the rent reviews are to be triggered or agreed.  Both leases contain provision for arbitration in the event that the parties are unable to agree the reviewed rent(s).

1.5       It is recognised that community based organisations play a vital role in improving the quality of life and social outcomes for an area.  Settlement of rent reviews for such leases can often involve a significant time resource weighted against the relatively small increases in rent.  

1.6       Members, however, may wish to note that Councils in N.Ireland are currently constrained in their ability to dispose or lease premises to community type organisations at nominal amounts.  Section 96(5) of the Local Government Act (NI) 1972 requires District Councils [except with the prior approval of the Department of the Environmant (DOE)] to dispose of property for the best price or best rent that can reasonably be obtained.  By contrast, Councils in England have a wider ability as the ‘LGA 1972 General Disposal Consent (England) 2003: Disposal of Land for Less than Best Consideration’ removes the requirements for authorities to seek the consent of the Secretary of State for disposal at less  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7b

            The Committee was reminded that delivery of the Connswater Community Greenway Flood Alleviation Scheme was a key project within the Investment Programme.  The Scheme for the creation of a 16 kilometre walkway along the Knock, Loop and Connswater Rivers incorporated extensive flood alleviation works.  Funding for that Scheme had been provided by the Big Lottery, the Council, the Department for Social Development and the Rivers Agency.

            The Director of Property and Projects reminded the Members that residents of Orangefield Park, a street which ran adjacent to the park at Orangefield, had been badly affected by flooding on a number of occasions over the past five to six years and once again during the heavy rain of Wednesday, 27th June, 2012.  He explained that the flood alleviation works planned for the Knock River at Orangefield as part of the Scheme would greatly reduce the risk of flooding to the houses in the vicinity of the park.  He stated that the Rivers Agency had appointed White Mountain Quarries Limited to:

·         construct a new culvert at Orangefield Lane to  supplement the capacaity of the existing culvert; and

·         construct a flood storage area at the upstream extent of Orangefield Park on lands previously owned by the Belfast Education and Library Board and recently acquired by the Council.

            White Mountain Quarries Limited were required to enter into a licence agreement with the Council to regulate their occupation of the Council-owned land and the licence would, amongst other things, ensure appropriate reinstatement, site security, protection of adjoining Council land and deal with insurance issues.  The licence would be for a three week period and week to week thereafter until the work had been completed.

            The Committee approved the granting of a licence agreement, in the sum of 5 pence if demanded, to White Mountain Quarries Limited to undertake the flood alleviation works on Council-owned land as outlined.

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

“1        Relevant Background Information

1.1       At its meeting of 20 April 2005 the Development Committee agreed in principle to the proposed disposal of former traveller lands, including land at Glen Road (adjoining Glen Road Heights) to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) for development of social housing subject to agreement on valuation.  Committee were also asked to note that the NIHE current methodology for site acquisition involves appointing Housing Associations.

1.2       At a subsequent meeting of 16th November 2005 the Development Committee was advised that the NIHE had instructed the Valuation and Lands Office (now Land and Property Services – LPS) to enter into discussions to acquire the Council’s Glen Road site which extends to approximately 8.5 acres (including the Glen Road Heights approach road).

1.3       NIHE subsequently nominated Oaklee and Fold Housing Associations jointly to progress development proposals and acquire the Council’s land. At their meeting of 21st September 2007 the Development Committee was advised  of Oaklee/Fold Housing Associations comprehensive development proposal for a major housing development for the Glen Road on a much larger site of approximately 30 acres which included NIHE land and land in private ownership that adjoins the Council’s land.

1.4       Following formal presentation of development plans a planning consultant was appointed in June 2008 to advise the Council on the implications of the Oaklee/Fold proposals for a comprehensive scheme in terms of impact on the development potential for the Council’s land. LPS were also formally requested to provide valuations of Council’s land both as part of the larger comprehensive scheme including other land and also in the event of Council’s land being developed independently.

1.5       Despite prolonged negotiations with Oaklee/Fold’s independent valuer (BTW Shiells) to progress on the basis of a comprehensive acquisition of all three landholdings no agreement could be reached on the relative split of site values and the private landowner also did not want to progress on the basis of the proposed scheme. Under dBMAP proposals it had been considered that a comprehensive approach was the sole means of providing any social housing at this location – hence the need to progress land assembly under a similar comprehensive approach.

1.6       Through discussion with Planning Service the Estates Management Unit have been able to confirm that appropriate phased development, eventually delivering the comprehensive development envisaged under dBMAP, would be acceptable in planning terms. This approach effectively permits Council to progress a disposal to Oaklee/Fold of its landholding in isolation from the other landowners that would not prejudice further comprehensive development coming forward in the future.

2          Key Issues

2.1       Both BUAP and dBMAP indicate that the Council’s land, in association with adjoining lands, is zoned for housing. Key Site Requirements (KSR) have been included in dBMAP relating to these three ownerships to ensure a comprehensive approach to development is achieved. NIHE have also identified these lands as suitable for social housing. Delivery  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7d

            The Committee approved and adopted the minutes of the meeting of the Good Relations Partnership of 10th September.

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“Relevant Background Information

      At its meeting on 3rd September, 2007, the Council passed the following resolution in response to a Notice of Motion by (then) Councillor Patterson:

      ‘This Council acknowledges the tremendous support and sacrifice made by Her Majesties Forces during thirty-five years of conflict in Northern Ireland.  Operation Banner was the longest running campaign in military history, a campaign which saw the loss of many lives.  Peace in Northern Ireland came at a heavy price but without the selfless dedication and commitment of the British Army, Ulster Defence Regiment, Royal Irish Regiment and the Royal Ulster Constabulary/Police Service of Northern Ireland this great City and, indeed, the entire Province would have found itself in a state of civil war.  The Council welcomes the ending of Operation Banner but must be ever mindful of the ultimate sacrifice many had to pay for peace.  The Council agrees to construct a fitting memorial to the Servicemen and women who helped to maintain peace and law and order during the duration of Operation Banner.’

      No action was taken at that time as the Council was preparing to decant from the City Hall. At its meeting on 24 April 2009 the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee referred this to the (then) Memorabilia Working Group to be considered as part of the overall review of memorabilia and there was a suggestion at the meeting that the memorial might take the form of a stained glass window.

      A report was submitted to the Memorabilia Working Group on 29 May 2009 which noted that there were already 3 stained glass windows in the City Hall dedicated to various arms of the forces – including the UDR, the British Army and the RUC/George Cross. The Working Group agreed, on that occasion, that the memorial should be located in the City Hall grounds, preferably in the Garden of Remembrance and made several suggestions, including a bench with a suitable memorial plaque, tree planting etc.

      The Memorabilia Working Group considered a further report with a range of options and costs at its meeting on 14 August 2009.  These options included the planting of semi-mature trees, a bespoke granite seat and a memorial bronze statue. The Memorabilia Working Group Members discussed these options at various meetings in 2009 and 2010 but no decisions were made; Party Groups were to consider the issue and report back their views but no agreement was reached regarding what form the memorial should take or an associated budget.

      Members may wish to note that in the interim, a 19 feet high bronze statue in memory of the Ulster Defence Regiment was unveiled in the centre of Lisburn in June 2011.  It was funded entirely by the UDR Memorial Trust and was intended to be a regional/Northern Ireland wide memorial.

Key Issues

      At the meeting of the Joint Diversity Working Group on 29 June 2012, the issue was considered again and the Members requested updated costs for a number of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8b