Minutes:
The Director of Property and Projects submitted for the Committee’s consideration the undernoted report:
“1 Purpose of report
1.1 To provide Members with an update on the Social Investment Fund, the draft area plans which were submitted to OFMDFM on 31st January and an initial overview of their implications for the Council.
2 Relevant Background Information
2.1 Members are aware the OFMdFM established an £80m Social Investment Fund (split between capital and revenue) aimed at ‘reducing poverty, unemployment and physical deterioration through strategic areas based interventions of significant scale’. The Fund has 4 strategic objectives:
§ Build Pathways to Employment
§ Tackling the systemic issues linked to deprivation
§ Increase community physical resources
§ Address dereliction
2.2 The Social Investment Fund is being delivered in partnership with communities across the 9 social investment zones. The 4 zones in the Greater Belfast area – North, South, East and West were based on Northern Ireland Assembly constituencies. A Steering Group made up of representative from the business, political, statutory and voluntary and community sectors was established for each area. The Council was represented at a Director level on each of the 4 zones. Members agreed previously that officers should work with their counterparts in Castlereagh and Newtownabbey Borough Councils to develop proposals to feed into the plans for the four zones. The key role of the Steering Groups was to develop and manage an area-based plans for their zone. An independent consultant, Copius consulting, was appointed to manage and co-ordinate each of the Belfast zones.
2.3 Members may be aware that the original timescale for SIF was extremely tight with all area plans due to be completed by December 2012 and all spend committed by 2015. This proved to be impractical given the magnitude of work to develop area plans given the need for extensive consultation and the impact of the 2015 timescale on the deliverability of capital projects. The timescales were subsequently revised with all area plans to be submitted by 31st January and all spend committed by 2016.
3.0 Key Issues
3.1 Each Steering Group meet intensively over the period from October when the Groups were established till the end of January in order to produce the draft area plans. Each Steering Group has now presented its agreed draft area plan to OFMDFM. The capital and revenue projects/cluster themes within these draft plans are now undergoing an economic appraisal by Copius Consulting before being passed to DFP.
3.2 Council officers are currently analysing the 4 draft area plans and identifying and scoping the implications of the various projects for the Council with regard the following issues:
· the capital projects where there is expectation that the Council will be the delivery agent to support procurement, design, etc.
· those projects which are match-funded in principle by Local Investment Fund
· those projects which have been awarded a % funding in principle by Local Investment Fund, but have not received the anticipated match-funding from SIF
· match-funding expectations for the Belfast Investment Fund and potential priority projects
· projects which fit within Council strategies (e.g. Pitches Strategy) and where there may be advantage to both the Council and groups for the Council to be the primary delivery agent
· Revenue projects such as employability which do not currently have a neat strategic ‘fit’ with Council objectives
· Revenue projects such as advice services where complementarity with Council objectives/current provision needs to be built in
A summary of the draft area plans and the projects contained within them has been circulated. Council officers are also currently mapping the proposed SIF projects.
3.3 Out of this initial analysis there are a number of key issues which Members are asked to note –
· The Council has been identified as the ‘preferred’ or ‘potential’ delivery agent for up to 96 capital projects under the draft SIF plans (outlined in the Table below). These range in magnitude from major capital builds, new pitch provision, pitch upgrades to smaller extensions/refurbishments of community facilities. There will be associated resource implications across the Council and resources costs in delivering these and the impact of delivering these also needs to be taken in the context of the Council’s other project delivery commitments under the Capital Programme, the Local Investment Fund and projects which may emerge through the Belfast Investment Fund. However the exact resource implications cannot be quantified until the outcome of the economic appraisal process on all plans is completed and there is a finalised definitive list of projects to be delivered. Members are asked to note that there is a management fee (potentially up to 20%) available for the delivery of projects. However the amount and how this will be processed needs further clarification. If the Council does become a delivery agent for any/all of the identified projects then a more in-depth resource analysis will need to be undertaken once the implementation of plans is more confirmed.
|
West |
Named as Preferred delivery agent for 36 projects 1 major capital projects (St Comgall’s) 2 clusters of capital projects – Increasing Community Services (18 projects in total) and Health and Well-Being (17 projects in total) |
|
North |
Named as Potential delivery agent (named alongside DSD and a new Ethical Development Trust which will be established) for up to 24 projects 6 clusters of projects – Childcare (2 projects), Community Support –New Build (3 projects), Community Support – Extensions/Renovations (7 projects), Health and Well-being (3 projects), Addressing Dereliction (4 projects), Social Enterprise (5 projects) Also named as potential delivery agent for up to 30 projects under technical assistance
|
|
South |
Named as Preferred delivery agent for 14 projects 2 clusters of capital projects – Increasing Community Services (10 projects in total) and Sports & Leisure (4 projects in total) |
|
East |
Named as Preferred delivery agent for 22 projects 2 clusters of capital projects – Increasing Community Services (17 projects in total) and Addressing Dereliction (5 projects in total) Also named as potential delivery agent for up to 25 projects under technical assistance |
· At least 10 of the proposed capital projects are on Council assets. Members are asked to
· note that this figure may change however as it is not immediately clear from the brief project descriptions contained within the draft plans where the exact locations of some proposed projects are and there may be further projects which might be on Council assets. It is also not clear at this stage if these proposals are premised on the basis that the Council will dispose of these assets (by lease or otherwise) or if the acquisition and/or lease costs have been factored into overall project costs. In addition, there are a number of proposed projects that involve other public sector owned land or property e.g. DRD. Initial discussions on some of these would indicate that these bodies may not be in a position to dispose of the asset to a third party but that they might dispose (by way of a lease or otherwise) to the Council who could in turn sub-lease to a third party. This again will have resource implications for the Council.
· There are queries over proposed project costs for many of the projects– particularly projects where Council is named as a preferred/potential delivery agent. At this stage many are ball park estimates only and have not been subjected to an independent analysis. The figures will be tested as part of the economic appraisal process.
· Council may end up delivering projects (e.g. addressing dereliction/alley-gating activities) funded by SIF, in one area and not another, which may have political and/or community consequences, particularly in the context of the Investment Programme’s ‘balanced investment’ principle
3.4 Members are asked to note that as some of the projects proposed are on Council assets the Council is being approached through the economic appraisal process to provide either further information or provide support. Members are asked to approve officers to continue to facilitate the economic appraisal process as required.
3.5 Council officers also recently met with senior representatives from OFMDFM regarding the draft area plans. A number of general issues emerged during this discussion –
· The total fund is over-subscribed
· Displacement has been identified as a significant issue in the capital stream. This is being further interrogated in the appraisal process
· Differentiation/duplication with mainstream departmental revenue programmes such as advice services, health programmes, warm homes and employability are key concerns
· In terms of employability, there appears to be a need for specific programme for over 25s (e.g. 40-50s). We have asked that the Council is involved in that discussion, particularly in relation to employability, given the work around developing a City Employability Strategy
· A funders’ reference group is being established and the Council will be invited to join
3.6 Members are asked to note that there is no single point of co-ordination for the 4 plans in Belfast. There is perhaps a future role for the Council in developing synergies and connectivity between the plans, as per our original consultation response. It is therefore recommended that discussions regarding a central co-ordination role are progressed with OFMDFM.
Next steps
3.7 The next steps in relation to the draft Area Plans is outlined below for Members –
|
March |
Ministers to agree notional allocation of funding |
|
March – June
|
Economic appraisal process to be undertaken in order of priority allocated by the Zone Steering Groups Validation of appraisal information by SIB and DFP – during this process projects will be challenged and, if appropriate, may be streamlined and/or recommended for delivery on a city-wide basis. Risk appraisal to be undertaken |
|
May onwards |
Projects/clusters to the presented in batches to internal approvals panel for sign-off (no return to Ministers) |
|
Aug onwards |
Issue of contracts in batches |
4.0 Resource Implications
4.1 Resources and Assets - As outlined in 3.3 above
5 Equality and Good Relations Considerations
5.1 OFMDFM is responsible for the equality screening and impact assessment of SIF.
6 Recommendations
6.1 Members are asked to
· Note that the Council has been named as preferred or potential delivery agent for a substantial number of projects under the draft area plans and agree this in principle at this stage. This will be subject to
o the outcome of the economic appraisal process,
o further clarification around the management fee that will be available and the process around this
o further analysis of the resources implications that this will require and the impact of this on the Council’s other project delivery commitments
A further update on this will be brought to Committee in due course as the economic appraisal process progresses and the resources implications become clearer
· Agree that officers continue to facilitate the economic appraisal process as required at this stage
· Agree that officers continue discussions with OFMDFM re the draft area plans and the potential for the Council to play a central co-ordination role to ensure that synergies and connectivity between the plans are identified.”
After discussion, during which several Members made the point that there was a need for the delivery mechanisms to have a connection between Citywide projects and local programmes, the Committee adopted the recommendations.
Supporting documents: