Minutes:
The Committee considered the undernoted report:
“1.0 Relevant Background Information
1.1 The Executive agreed in March 2011 to the establishment of the Social Investment Fund. The 4 strategic objectives of the Fund are:
Build Pathways to Employment by tackling educational under achievement and barriers to employment; tackling skills deficits and promoting jobs brokerage, widening access to the labour market, promoting business start up and increasing sustainability through social enterprise.
Tackling the systemic issues linked to deprivation including poor mental and physical health (suicide and self harm), young mothers, substance abuse, community safety, children and young people at risk, physical health and enhancing community capacity, confidence and partnership working to end deprivation.
Increase community services by regenerating and community services by regenerating and refurbishing existing facilities and providing play facilities and environmental improvements.
End dereliction and promoting investment in the
physical regeneration of deprived areas.
There is more detail on the anticipated provision included in the consultation document (available at: http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/social-investment-fund).
The period for public consultation closes on Thursday 23 December.
1.2 There are 4 investment zones proposed in Belfast: Greater North (CEP areas); West Belfast and Greater Shankill Taskforce area; Greater East (inc. North Down and Ards); and Greater South (inc. Lagan Valley). All areas within the zones will not automatically be included; it will be determined by previously identified areas of high deprivation.
1.3 Each Social Investment Zone will establish a steering group which will comprise community, political, statutory agency and business representatives. The Steering Group will identify and make recommendations on all the proposed areas to be included in the strategic plan. The document outlines 4 options for the establishment of the Steering Group.
1.4 Each area plan will comprise a range of themes and priority actions/projects, to be delivered over 3 years, and based on the 4 strategic objectives of the Fund. It is proposed that only one strategic area plan will be brought forward from each zone. Each Steering Group’s strategic plan should reflect the needs across the entire zone, be able to demonstrate community support, is impact-focussed and should encourage a collaborative approach.
1.5 The funding available under SIF is both revenue and capital. The split is:
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Resource £8m £10m £11m £11m
Capital £0m £10m £15m £15m
Any funding not spent in Year 1 will be re-profiled over years 2,3 and 4 of the project therefore ensuring the Fund remains at £80million overall.
It is anticipated that Year 1 will include a development phase to build capacity within communities, develop area plans and to establish the local arrangements for delivery.
2.0 Key Issues
2.1 A response to the consultation has been prepared, following discussion with the elected Members. Further to this, a roundtable meeting with the Area Partnership Boards and the Neighbourhood Renewal Partnerships was convened to explore the strategic direction and implementation of the Fund in Belfast. Their comments have been reflected in this response.
2.2 Broadly speaking, the Council commends OFMDFM's commitment to securing a fund that aims to increase quality of life, reduce poverty, improve employment opportunities and address dereliction. There are strong synergies between the objectives of the Fund and the Council’s current corporate objectives, services and programmes.
2.3 There are a number of issues related to the speedy and strategic implementation of the Fund which we would like to work closely with OFMDFM to address, and we highlight these below:
a. The Fund should result in change that people can see, touch and feel at a local level rather than the establishment of structures and development of plans. There is an abundance of plans, concepts, strategies and priority lists and the focus needs to switch to prioritisation and delivery. Both the updated Neighbourhood Renewal plans and the Strategic Regeneration Frameworks are an articulation of local needs and issues that could be utilised to inform what projects and activities are prioritised under the Fund.
The Council, in close consultation with key partners, could play a leadership role in supporting the alignment of this multiplicity of plans, so that the city can maximise the potential of the Fund;
b. There is a need to ensure that the plans from the 4 social investment zones within Belfast as a whole must be complementary to ensure that they are both physically and thematically connected, balanced, collaborative and promote mobility within and across the city;
c. The geographies for delivery are fundamental and the document contains no clarity on the proposed boundaries for the areas or guidance on proportionality within or between districts – some of which cross council boundaries. There may be merit in OFMDFM considering the potential to align the social investment zones with the new council boundaries being considered under the reform of local government;
d. We welcome the direct involvement of the First Minister and deputy First Minister and the Council is keen to support them in the achievements of the ambitious goals of the Fund. We believe therefore that since 50% of the focus of the programme is in the greater Belfast area, there is a special case for Belfast representation at the Ministerial Committee;
e. As place-shaper for the city, we would strongly argue that local government must be represented on the steering groups, linking the steering groups to the democratic mandate of the city leadership. Given the emphasis on area-based community planning, it is critical that local government must be fully involved at all stages in the implementation and management of the Fund, including the development, assessment, implementation and co-ordination of the area plans;
f. The Council is a significant funder in the city – across community services; arts organisations; physical regeneration programmes; good relations; community safety; etc – and seeks assurance that the proposed Funders’ Forum includes local government and not just central government funders;
g. It is important to note that the Council has a substantial track record in both delivery and advocacy for major regeneration programmes, services and activities. We have the skills and capability in terms of delivering local projects as well as the systems for accounting for public money. Our track record includes: Renewing the Routes; delivery of the Integrated Delivery Fund; employability projects; community safety; physical refurbishment; capital build programmes – all of which have close alignment to the programmes and activities that are highlighted as priorities within the Fund. We understand the invaluable role of sustained community engagement in informing each of these initiatives and would be able to bring that experience and those diverse networks to the implementation of the Fund in Belfast;
h. There are also practical considerations such as equality impact screening, acquisition/vesting of land, planning permissions, lengthy economic appraisal processes and procurement, all of which are necessary but will delay implementation. The Council would welcome further discussion on how OFMDFM could potentially accelerate these time-consuming processes, as well as ensuring appropriate accountability and building the appropriate capacity at a local level;
i. While there is an appreciation that that this can only be a four year programme, but it is critical to acknowledge that the deprivation and poverty issues that the programme seeks to address are deep-seated. There needs to be clear linkages between the social investment zone plans and the ongoing transfer of powers work with DSD particularly in terms of community development, neighbourhood renewal and urban regeneration powers. OFMDFM will need to link the management of this process into DSD grant-funding and investment schemes, so that the long term sustainability of programmes and initiatives can be considered. It is important that Council is not left with an unsustainable legacy from the Fund. It is therefore critical that OFMDFM outlines its exit strategy for the Fund and includes Council in its design, from the outset.
2.4 Members will be aware that we are currently developing the detail of the Local Investment Fund. Strategic Policy and Resources Committee agreed that £2.5m of the under-spend for the 2010/2011 financial year be realigned into the Local Capital Investment Fund as a rolling fund. The following objectives were agreed at the June 2011 meeting of the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee:
To provide the Council with the ability to invest in smaller scale local/neighbourhood capital schemes;
To act as a catalyst for attracting or complementing resources from the public, private and voluntary sectors;
To provide funding for initial development capital at the local level which enhances development economics, ‘pump priming’ development opportunities and acting as a demand stimulus;
To enable the Council to have a more strategic conversation with key delivery bodies and communities about the investment priorities for the city.
Further to this, initial principles were agreed by Strategic Policy and Resources Committee at its meeting on 23th September 2011. As the implementation plan for the Social Investment Fund takes shape, officers will work to ensure that the delivery detail of the Local Investment Fund is closely aligned, allowing us all to maximise the impact of public funding and resources in the city.
2.5 Following discussion at Committee, the response will be submitted to OFMDFM in advance of their deadline on December 23, subject to ratification by the Council on 4th January 2012.
3.0 Resource Implications
To be determined following issue of finalised implementation plan from OFMDFM.
4.0 Equality Implications
OFMDFM is responsible for the equality screening and impact assessment to be undertaken. The document contains an initial equality screening and there is a commitment to subject individual programmes as they emerge in future to more detailed equality screening.
5.0 Recommendations
The Committee is asked for comment on the consultation response and to agree a submission to OFMDFM.”
During discussion, several Members made the point that the response should request that more clarity should be provided in relation to the proposed boundaries of the investment zones, the need for an exit strategy and the need to target resources based on objective need and to ensure that pockets of deprivation were tackled.
After further discussion, the Committee approved the draft response, subject to the incorporation of the above-mentioned comments and noted that a full copy of the response was available on the Council’s website.