Agenda item

            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 22 June 2012, Committee agreed to support in principle 6 preliminary recommendations from the Area Working Groups (AWGs) up to a total value of £790,852:

 

Area Working Group	Total LIF amount allocated	Amount agreed in principle at 22 June	Amount remaining
East	£1,127,500	£280,852	£846,645
South	£1,127,500	£60,000	£1,067,500
West	£1,127,500	£250,000	£877,500
North	£1,127,500	£100,000	£1,027,500
Greater Shankill	£490,000	£100,000	£390,000

 

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

 

SP&R Committee also agreed to a cut-off for phase 1 of the LIF, in order to manage the proposals that had already been received by 22 June.

 

2.0       Key Issues

 

2.1       Area Working Groups

 

Each AWG has now met to be briefed on their respective long-list of projects.  These meetings were well-attended and Members are actively considering a range of issues, including anticipated outcomes, links to partner organisation investments and connectivity between the 5 areas.  There has also been preliminary discussion on how the AWGs connect with the work of the service Committees, for example, in relation to tourism development.

 

Two groups (West; South) have indicated that they would like to convene an inter-agency meeting to develop and, where appropriate, implement collaborative interventions in specific localities within their area.  All groups are also exploring how they might engage with the OFMDFM Social Investment Fund Zone Steering Groups, due to convene in September.

 

2.2       Risk workshop

 

The Director has recently facilitated an inter-departmental workshop to examine the implications of the next phase of the LIF.  With officers from Legal Services, Estates Management, Finance and other relevant disciplines, a number of key issues have emerged.  In summary, these issues are:

-     Match funding

 

Many of the match funding offers are time-bound and the Council needs to be responsive to those opportunities.  Likewise, SP&R needs assurance that its funding will be allocated within the 3 year timeframe of the LIF.

 

-        Procurement

 

A number of AWGs recognise the potential for collective procurement.  A flexible mechanism needs to be developed to ensure that opportunities for this to happen are maximised e.g. the purchase of modular buildings.  Likewise, there is a need to ensure that procurement processes are compliant with the Council’s obligations in relation to EU frameworks

 

-        Financial monitoring

 

There will be a resource implication in relation to ensuring that the proper procedures are applied in relation to accounting for public monies, also in relation to ‘claw-back’ clauses if the work is not completed.  Officers are also developing reporting mechanisms which will provide sufficient audit assurance to SP&R Committee, while ensuring that the requirements on local groups are proportionate to the amount of investment.

 

-        Quality monitoring

 

In order to give assurance to Committee on completed projects, consideration is needed on the quality of the physical investment and outcomes.

 

-        Monitoring outcomes

 

A key consideration by all AWGs, is the potential of the proposals to deliver positive outcomes for the local area.  It is critical that the Council is able to demonstrate the benefits of its investment, with evidence that the LIF has had a positive impact on the quality of life for its residents.  As part of the work on the contractual arrangements, consideration is also being given to the performance mechanisms which need to be in place.  This will be particularly important in relation to the forthcoming Member workshops (see below) to determine local outcomes.

 

Officers are now working on detailed proposals to present to Committee in relation to the contractual arrangements e.g. terms and conditions, and resources required to administer the implementation phase of the LIF.

 

An internal mid-year review of the AWGs and LIF will also be undertaken in October, to report to SP&R Committee.

 

2.3       AWG Recommendations

 

At the most recent round of AWG meetings, officers updated Members on the external meetings they have facilitated on these proposals.  This included ascertaining the stage of development of a wide range of projects.  In accordance with Council procedures, individual Members declared any conflicts of interest and this was noted in the minutes of the AWG.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

            It is recommended that Committee approves these recommendations subject to confirmation of costs, clarification of legal issues, sustainability and eligibility where elements of non capital items are included.

 

2.4       Conditions of offer

 

            The AWGs have identified projects that have significant potential to deliver positive outcomes for the local area.  Where projects are agreed in principle if further enquiries address the outstanding issues we would suggest Committee approval stands. Where difficulties arise we will go back to AWGs with outstanding issues.

 

            Further support may be needed from the Council in order to enable groups to maximise the benefits.  This will form part of the contract with the group. This is a broader issue, linked to the revenue capacity of the Council.  The Community Development Strategy outlines a role for the Council

            in supporting the community development infrastructure in the city and there are clear linkages with the LIF and the broader, emerging ‘community planning’ role of the AWGs.  Committee may wish to consider in the future how these linkages can be formalised.

 

2.5       Workshops

 

            At its meeting on 22 June, SP&R Committee agreed to a series of workshops examining the role of Members in place-shaping and community engagement, in the context of the LIF, as well as the wider context of community planning. 

 

2.6       Feasibility Fund

 

            All of the AWGs have flagged projects for the Feasibility Fund – approximately 22 in total – as agreed previously by SP&R. The Feasibility Fund is also to include City Investment Fund projects.  The AWGs recognise that there is a need to manage public expectations and pursue only those projects which are a priority for their area.  Further work is needed on a process to determine the priorities across the Local and City Investment Funds.

 

3.0       Other Area Issues

 

3.1       Most of the AWGs discussed other non LIF issues concerning their areas. The approach in East remains focused on substantial tourism projects. South is also interested in tourism and invited tourism officers to the meeting to explore potential integrated activity particularly in regard to the Lagan Corridor. West have been concerned with integration of community based projects on an area basis. North discussed outcomes in some depth and have a number of projects which they wish to test in feasibility. Shankill raised issues about connectivity particularly in regard to the Belfast Hills.  The primary responsibility for directing the priority of the work of officers in the Tourism Unit lies with the Development Committee and Council.  At present there is sufficient capacity to deal with the feasibility issues being raised by AWGs but eventually an overall report on the resourcing and prioritisation implications will have to be discussed at the Development Committee.

 

3.2       Specifically West proposed the need for a mutli agency intervention in the Lower Falls/ Divis area and this has been followed up by a letter to the Chief Executive from the Sinn Féin group.

 

3.3       Similarly South raised a multi faceted issue in respect of Lower Crescent which may have ASB problems but also potential for an artist market within the Council’s open space.

 

3.4       It is positive that the AWGs are identifying difficult problems that will need a co-ordinated response from various organisations and it is suggested that one of the key challenges facing the Council in facilitating community planning will be ensuring effective public services integration at a local area level.  It is therefore suggested that each area group should consider one integrated intervention as a pilot.

 

4.0       Equality Implications

 

            The overall programme of LIF investments will be screened at regular intervals to ensure that the Council is fulfilling its obligations as part of the Equality Scheme, as well as ensuring that it is in line with the Investment Programme’s underpinning principles related to good relations and balanced investment.

 

            At the risk workshop, it was agreed that an Equality Strategy for LIF would be prepared for consideration by SP&R Committee in due course.  This work is underway.

 

5.0       Resource Implications

 

            Human: None at present

 

            Financial:

 

Area Working Group	Total LIF amount available	Previously approved in principle	Additional proposals in para 2.3	Amount remaining
East	£1,127,500	£280,852	£0	£846,648
South	£1,127,500	£60,000	£0	£1,067,500
West	£1,127,500	£250,000	£816,000	£61,500
North	£1,127,500	£100,000	£615,000	£412,500
Greater Shankill	£490,000	£100,000	£108,000	£282,000

 

            Assets:           Further work to be completed. Will be presented to Committee for agreement in due course.

 

6.0       Recommendations

 

            It is recommended that Committee agree to:

 

1.        Endorse the AWG recommendations in paragraph 2.3 in accordance to the caveats in paragraph 2.4

2.        Note the current remaining levels of LIF allocation as set in paragraph 5

3.     To ask CMT to consider how the Council might best address area interventions, encourage each area group to consider a pilot integration intervention and authorise officers to bring suggestions back to Committee on how this might be facilitated.

4.        To note the workshops and appendices.”

 

            With the permission of the Chairman, Alderman Stoker referred to the list of projects which had been agreed by the West Belfast Area Working Group and which had been recommended to the Committee for its endorsement.  He referred specifically to an application which had been submitted by Suffolk Football Club seeking funding to develop changing and meeting room facilities at the Suffolk Playing Fields. He expressed his view that the Club’s proposals had met the criteria for assistance as set out within the prioritisation matrix, given that match-funding had been secured and planning permission obtained for the project. He further stated his view that preference had been given by the Working Group to projects which were not as advanced as the Football Club’s proposal. Accordingly, he requested that the issue be re-examined by the Committee.

 

            After discussion, the Committee adopted the recommendations within the report, noted Alderman Stoker’s comments and requested the West Belfast Area Working Group to report back to the Committee on its consideration of the proposal by Suffolk Football Club. The Committee agreed also to defer the approval of the Gray’s Lane Play Park proposal in North Belfast and noted that any allocation of funding to the ‘ARC’ project in North Belfast was time-bound and subject to match-funding.