Agenda and minutes

            The minutes of the meetings of 13th and 20th February were taken as read and signed as correct.  It was reported that those minutes had been adopted by the District Council at its meeting on 3rd March.

            An apology for inability to attend was reported on behalf of Councillor Spence.

            Councillor Carson declared an interest in respect of item 4b “Request for Financial Assistance” in so far as he was employed by one of the organisations which had submitted an application.

            The Committee agreed that those items which contained confidential information be considered at the end of the meeting.

            The Committee was reminded that the Shadow Council, at its meeting on 3rd March, had referred the following Notice of Motion, which had been moved by Councillor O’Hara and seconded by Councillor Graham, to the Committee for consideration:

      “As we approach and celebrate International Women’s Day on 7th March, this Council recognises and pays tribute to the significant contribution which women have made to all aspects of life in our City.  In acknowledging this further, the Council will, under the auspices of the Women’s Steering Group, commission a new stained glass window in the City Hall which will recognise, reflect and celebrate the positive role which women have played in our City.”

            It was pointed out that the installation of a further stained glass window would need to be considered within the overall context of City Hall Memorabilia.  One of the Council’s primary aims was to make the environment within the City Hall balanced, inclusive and reflective of the backgrounds of all the citizens of the City.  As a first step, it was suggested that the matter should be referred to the Women’s Steering Group for comment.  That Group could consider also the scope and themes to be depicted within the window and examine the potential costs in its production.  Thereafter, it would be a matter for the Diversity Working Group to consider and make a recommendation to the Committee.

            The Democratic Services Manager explained that such a course of action in referring the matter to an appropriate group for detailed consideration would be in keeping with a previous decision to refer consideration of the “Celtic Myths and Legends” window to the former Memorabilia Working Group for initial comment.  In addition, the Committee would be aware that a Spanish Civil War Commemorative Window Working Group was currently examining the scope and content of that particular window.

            The Committee agreed that the matter be referred to the Women’s Steering Group for consideration in the first instance.

            The Committee was advised that the Shadow Council, at its meeting on 3rd March, had referred the undernoted Notice of Motion, which had been moved by Councillor Hanna and seconded by Councillor Attwood, to the Committee for consideration:

      “This Council notes that City Centres which are child and family friendly bring a wide range of benefits including,

·        Contributing to healthy childhood development

·        Driving economic regeneration as families spend more time in the City; and

·        Making City Centre living a more viable option for families, and thereby contributing to longer-term social regeneration.

      The Council commends the work of the Belfast Healthy Cities organisation which has been researching child friendly places since 2011, including the provision of temporary ‘Kids Spaces’ in the City Centre.  The Council agrees to harness its new planning, community planning and economic regeneration powers to develop a world class family friendly strategy for Belfast, including the development of ‘Kids Spaces’ in the City Centre”

            It was pointed out that the Notice of Motion referred specifically to the Council’s powers in respect of planning, community planning and economic regeneration.  Therefore, the Committee might consider that the Motion fell within the role of the City Growth and Regeneration Committee.  If so, it would be prudent for the issue to be referred onwards for consideration and comment.  It would be a matter ultimately for the new Strategic Policy and Resources Committee to determine any costs, if any, which would be incurred in a family friendly strategy for the City.

            The Committee agreed that the Notice of Motion be referred to the City Growth and Regeneration Committee.

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0   Purpose of Paper – Consultation Response

1.1    This paper provides an overview of the Council’s response (attached at Appendix A) to the DoE’s the draft Guidance for Local Government Performance Improvement 2015 –a consultation paper.  In order to meet the response deadline today, March 20th and subject to the outcome of this meeting, the attached response will be forwarded to the DoE this afternoon, with an understanding that it has yet to be ratified by full Council. 

2.0    Background

2.1    Part 12 of the Local Government Act 2014, to take effect from the 1st April, imposes a new duty on the Council to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the exercise of its functions and to set improvement objectives for each financial year.  The Act sets out the framework for the operation of performance improvements.

2.2    As a Council we will be required to identify improvement objectives in our community plan (or the corporate plan in 2015-16), gather information to assess how we are performing and produce an annual report on performance against indicators that we set ourselves or those that have been set by government Departments.  Evidence of improvement may also be taken from other non-quantifiable sources.  This is not a new concept for Belfast as we have had a performance management framework in operation for a number of years. It is our intention to continue with this process and to incorporate the new duty within our framework.

2.3    The Department has now issued draft guidance to assist Councils to comply with the requirements of the act during this first year of operation.  This guidance has been circulated to Councils for comment and is included at Appendix 2 for reference.  The restriction to one year is designed to enable the performance function to be undertaken in the context of Councils’ corporate plans in year 1.  In future years improvement activity will relate to the Community Plan.  Performance improvement plans and the arrangements by which performance is delivered will be audited by the Local Government Auditor.

3.0    Summary of key issues raised in BCC Response

3.1   The Council welcomes this draft guidance and in particular the efforts to make specific arrangements for the 2015-16 period, before community plans have been developed, when Councils will be expected to measure performance in the context of their corporate plans.  It is our understanding that further guidance on the duty will be developed in 2016 and will inform our performance duty in future years.

3.2    We agree that alignment of the performance duty to the Community Plan is crucial if we are to demonstrate achievement of the objectives within it. However we reiterate that according to the legislation neither the Council nor the Department will have the authority or remit to insist upon or measure the performance of other partner organisations.  We also seek assurance that the performance guidance will continue to reflect any emergent changes in relation to the community planning duty, to which  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3a

            The Committee was advised that correspondence had been received from the Somme Association enquiring if the Council would wish to be represented on the 2015 Pilgrimages to the Somme, France from 28th June until 2nd July, 2015 and to Gallipoli, Turkey from 4th until 10th October, 2015.

            The Somme Pilgrimage, to mark the 99th Anniversary of the battle would follow the route taken by the 36th (Ulster) and 16th (Irish) Divisions during their service in the First World War.  Services of Commemoration would be held in both Thiepval and Guillemont, in addition to attendance at the Last Post Ceremony at the Menin Gate, Ypres.

            It was pointed out that this year marked the 100th Anniversary of the Gallipoli Campaign and the Somme Association, as part of their Centenary Commemoration Programme, planned on making a return pilgrimage to the peninsular.  It was proposed that a special commemoration service would take place on the visit and would be attended by VIP guests.  In March, 2010, the Association, in partnership with the Irish Government, had unveiled a new memorial to the 10th (Irish) Division and a number of Belfast City Councillors were in attendance at the commemoration service.

            In previous years, the Committee had authorised the attendance on the Somme tour of a representative of each of the Party Groupings on the Council.  The Council, in 1997, 1999 and 2000, had decided that it should not be represented on the Gallipoli Pilgrimage as those visits had not marked any particular anniversary.  However, in 2002 and in 2010, the Council had approved the attendance of an All-Party deputation.  The approximate cost of attending the events was £580 per person for the Somme Pilgrimage and £1,350 for the Gallipoli Pilgrimage plus the appropriate subsistence allowances.

            Accordingly, it was recommended that:

(i)   given the fact that the Council, by holding its own Somme Remembrance Service, recognised the importance of the Battle of the Somme to the people of Belfast and that Members normally attended the Somme Pilgrimage to recognise the sacrifice of the 36th (Ulster) and 16th (Irish) Divisions, the Committee approve the attendance on the Somme tour of a representative of each of the Party Groupings on the Council and the Chief Executive (or her nominee); and

(ii)  since this year marked the 100th Anniversary of the Gallipoli Campaign, the Committee accept the invitation to send a representative of each of the Party Groupings on the Council and the Chief Executive (or her nominee) on the Gallipoli Tour.

            The Committee adopted the recommendations.

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0     Background

1.1       Section 2(1) of the Local Government Act (NI) 2014 places a duty on Councils to prepare and keep up to date a Constitution.  The Act places a statutory duty on councils to include within the constitution:

a)     a copy of the Council’s Standing Orders

b)     a copy of the NI Local Government Code of Conduct for Councillors

c)     such information as the Department may direct

d)     such other information (if any) as the Council considers appropriate

            With regards to paragraph (c) above, the Department (DoE) has now also issued a Direction with a list of additional content that Councils will be required to include within their Constitutions.  A final copy of the Constitution must be available on the Council’s website by 30th April 2015.

            In order to help inform the overall content of the Constitution Members are today asked to consider each of the key documents that will underpin it namely:

-       Standing Orders;

-       Committee Roles and Responsibilities and;

-       Scheme of Delegation to Officers;

-       Financial Regulations.

2.0       Content of the Constitution – Key Documents

            Standing Orders

2.1       A draft set of standing orders was presented to the Shadow Strategic Policy and Resources Committee at its meeting on 20th February where it was agreed to defer the report until the 20th March meeting to allow them to be considered by party groups.  Feedback has now been received and incorporated into the amended version which has been circulated to the Committee.

2.2       The draft Standing Orders have been split into Sections.  Section 1 deals with the transaction of business at a full Council meeting, Section 2 provides for the transaction of business at Standing Committees and Section 3 includes some miscellaneous Standing Orders. We have also appended the current operating protocols for the Licensing and Planning Committees, although these may also be amended by the controlling Committees over the next couple of months.

2.3       Members will be aware that the Assembly did not pass the Standing Order Regulations earlier this month.  The main point of dispute was the Standing Order regarding the call in process.  Accordingly, the copy attached is based on the Model Standing Orders which were approved by the Shadow Council in June 2014.  When the Assembly revisits the Standing Order Regulations any amendments to this draft will be made and brought back to committee for final approval.

            Terms of Reference and Roles of Committees

2.4       The Council has already agreed its political management arrangements including the number, size, name and terms of reference for each committee. 

2.5       The Planning and Licensing Committees will be exercising regulatory functions and will be quasi-judicial in nature and will therefore have delegated authority from the Council to exercise a number of their functions. This will mean that the decisions of both Committees will not be subject to Council approval or call-in.

2.6       The three remaining Standing Committees: Strategic Policy and Resources; City Growth and Regeneration and; People and Communities will be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4b

            The Committee was reminded that it was a matter for each of the Council’s new Standing Committees to set the dates and times of their monthly meetings and that issue would be placed on the agenda for each Committee at their first meetings in April.  However, it was necessary for a date to be agreed in advance for the first meetings of each Committee and the Shadow Strategic Policy and Resources Committee was being requested to agree those dates.

            The Democratic Services Manager submitted for the Committee’s consideration suggested dates for the meetings of the five Standing Committees in April, together with suggested dates for the Budget and Transformation Panel and the Good Relations Partnership.  He pointed out that the meetings were scheduled to take place largely in the weeks commencing 13th and 20th April and that was to take account of the Easter holiday earlier in the month and to allow time for the reports for the first meetings of the new committees to be prepared.

            He explained that in February it had been agreed to establish four Area-based Working Groups and regular dates and times would need to be established for those in due course.  The work previously undertaken by the former five Area-based Working Groups would need to be reconfigured to take account of the changes in moving to a four Group model, which incorporated the new areas transferring into the new Belfast City Council from 1st April.

            Similarly, Members would be aware that for a few years monthly briefings had been held for the political parties on the Council where issues of importance could be discussed with individual parties before formal reports were submitted to the  decision-making process.  It was suggested that, in moving forward into the new Council and in order to take account of the call on Members’ time and the stated desire to focus on strategic outcomes for the City, a review should be undertaken into the operation of the Party Briefing arrangements to make sure that they maximised their effectiveness.

            The Democratic Services Manager reported that, in order for that to take place and, again, to allow the new Council to establish itself in the first month of its existence, it was suggested that no Area-based Working Group meetings or Party Briefings be held during the month of April unless specific issues arose that necessitated those meetings being held.

            The Committee agreed to this course of action and approved the undernoted schedule of meetings for April, 2015:

            The Committee was advised that a request had been received from Concern Worldwide seeking the use of the Council Chamber on Wednesday, 15th April to hold a schools debating event.  A series of debates have been taking place between schools around hunger, provision of aid, climate change and other issues relating to international development.  Concern Worldwide had requested the use of the Chamber between the hours of 7.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m. on that date to hold the final of the competition.

            The Democratic Services Manager reported that the use of the Council Chamber for events other than the monthly Council meeting taking place from 1st April onwards required the approval of the Shadow Strategic Policy and Resources Committee.  He pointed out that the applicant was of the view that the use of the Chamber would add prestige to the event and create a sense of excitement amongst participants and the small audience of parents and teachers who would be in attendance.  As such, it was considered that the request should be supported.

            The Committee approved the use of the Council Chamber on Wednesday, 15th April for the final of the schools debating competition, together with appropriate hospitality in the form of tea, coffee and biscuits.

            The Committee noted the minutes of the meetings of the Budget and Transformation Panel of 11th and 13th March.

            During discussion, Councillor Long pointed out that he had been advised not to attend the second meeting of the Panel on 13th March as there was a possible conflict of interest.

Noted.

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

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0  Background

1.1    At the Shadow Strategic Policy and Resources Committee on 30 January, it was reported that as part of the non-recurrent expenditure requirements report that around £800k was available to be allocated on a non recurrent basis.  At the same meeting it was agreed that £175k from the £800k would be allocated to the Tribunal Advisory Service leaving a total of £625k.

1.2    Two further requests for funding were presented to Members at their meeting on 20th February totalling £406,363.  These were:

·        a joint request for £316,327 shared across five organisations based in Belfast for Peace and reconciliation related projects delivered by members of republican and loyalist communities who were imprisoned as a result of the conflict.

·        A request for £90,036 for funding from WAVE ‘to assist in maintaining programmes for victims and survivors of the conflict for the delay in Peace IV EU funding coming to fruition’

1.3    At the meeting, the Committee agreed to defer consideration of these requests pending further information on what the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were doing to support the specific organisations in question.  Council Officers have been advised that while the five ex-prisoner groups have outlined to Ministers their resource requirements for the interim period from April to the likely commencement of the Peace IV Programme, the matter is still under consideration by the Ministers.

1.4    Members were also presented with a report at the meeting on 20^th February on the Community Development Grant Programme 2015/16 outlining options to in relation to the reduced budget allocation from DSD.  At this meeting Committee agreed to defer consideration of the provision of the fundingbands in relation to the Capacity Building and Community Buildings Revenue GrantProgramme to enable further information to be obtained.

1.5    This report sets out the most up to date position on the requests for funding outlined above and also outlines how the allocation of some of the non recurrent finance could reduce the shortfall in the Community Development Grant Programme in relation to Capacity Building and Community Buildings Revenue GrantProgramme.

2.0    Requests for Funding

2.1    An OFMDFM official has confirmed the Minsters have also received a request from the ‘From Prison to Peace’ Network, convened by the Community Foundation for Northern Ireland and that this is currently being considered by the Ministers.  No further information is available at this stage. Also the group have reduced the funding request to the Council from £316,327 to £272,075 to cover costs for a period of one year.

2.2    Subsequent to media coverage on the previous Committee decision, the Chief Executive has received correspondence from Teach na Failte.  Teach na Failte is also a support group for ex-prisoners.  In the letter, they express concern that it and another group have been excluded from the proposal submitted to the Council and challenge the transparency of the process.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5b

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1     Relevant Background Information

1.1    The Local Government Finance Act (NI) 2011 and the supporting Prudential and Treasury Codes produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA), require the council to consider the affordability and sustainability of capital expenditure decisions through the reporting of prudential and treasury management indicators.

1.2    This report provides information for Members on the prudential indicators for Belfast City Council for the period 2015/16 to 2017/18 and the Council’s Treasury Management Strategy for 2015/16.

2       Key Issues

2.1    The Local Government Finance Act (NI) 2011 requires the Council to adopt the CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities.  In doing so, the Council is required to agree a minimum revenue provision policy annually and set and monitor a series of Prudential Indicators, the key objectives of which are to ensure that, within a clear framework, the capital investment plans of the council are affordable, prudent and sustainable.

2.2    At the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee on the 9 December 2011, Members approved the Council’s Treasury Management Policy which is based on the CIPFA Treasury Management Code of Practice.  The Treasury Management Policy requires that a Treasury Management Strategy be presented to the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee on an annual basis and that it is supported by a mid-year and year end treasury management reports.

2.3    The prudential indicators are included as Appendix A, while the treasury management strategy and treasury management indicators have been included as Appendix B.

2.4    The comparison of ‘Gross Borrowing’ to ‘Capital Financing Requirement (CFR) is the main indicator of prudence when considering the proposed capital investment plans of the Council.  Estimated gross borrowing should not exceed the CFR for the current year plus two years.  The Council’s estimated gross borrowing position, illustrated in Table 3, Appendix A, is comfortably within the CFR in the medium term.  The Director of Finance and Resources therefore considers the estimated levels of gross borrowing as being prudent.

2.5    Table 4 and 5 (Appendix A) shows the estimated financing costs for capital expenditure as a percentage of the estimated net revenue stream for the Council, based on the medium financial plan, and the incremental impact on the rates of the Investment Programme.  These illustrate that in the medium term, capital financing costs will represent 9.19% of the Council’s net running costs.  On this basis the Director of Finance and Resources is satisfied that the level of capital expenditure is affordable.

2.6    The Finance Act requires the Council to set an affordable borrowing limit, relating to gross debt.  The Prudential Code defines the affordable limit as the ‘Authorised Borrowing Limit’ and gross borrowing must not exceed this limit.  Table 6 (Appendix A) sets out the recommended ‘Authorised Borrowing Limit’ for the Council as being £142m.

3       Recommendations

3.1   Members are asked to note the contents of this report and the prudential and treasury management indicators included within the appendices to the report.

         Members are also  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5c

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1     Purpose of Report

1.1    To provide a summary on the recent procurement exercise for the provision of a glass, kerbside collection scheme and recommendations for next steps.

2       Background

2.1    One of the initiatives contained within the ‘Towards Zero Waste’ Action Plan 2012-15 (ZAP plan) is the collection of glass from households in the blue bin area.  At the time of drafting this Plan it was anticipated that, once fully introduced, this initiative would contribute an additional 2.5% to the Council’s recycling rate.       

2.2    Given the delays in the original plans for a glass collection service procured by arc21 in 2012/13 arising from the threat of legal action, Members agreed to an interim, contingency arrangement whereby a 44 litre kerbside box for glass was rolled-out to 22,000 households.  When the arc21 tender process was terminated due to affordability issues, Members agreed at the January 2014 Committee meeting that the Council should commence a procurement exercise using the existing arrangements as a template to deliver this service specifically for Belfast.

2.3    In October 2014 a tender was issued for a suitable contractor to provide a mixed glass, kerbside collection and recycling service for approximately 88,000 households in the outer city area (blue bin scheme), including an estimated 13,500 apartments. 

2.4    A two stage Open Procedure was used with the first being a qualifying stage, requiring bidders to demonstrate the necessary ability, capacity and experience to meet our contract requirements.  Two companies progressed to stage two.  Both submissions provided valid proposals for ensuring the service requirements would be met.  However, the costs in the most economically advantageous bid were higher than expected, from benchmarking and other assessments undertaken, and raised issues in terms of a value for money and the apportionment of risk. A number of caveats raised about issues over the course of the proposed seven year term of the contract presented additional risks and costs for the Council. 

3       Key Issues

3.1    The procurement exercise for the provision of a kerbside collection of glass has concluded. On a cost and risk basis, and having reviewed similar contracts in the UK, the Service’s conclusion is that the proposed scheme is substantially more expensive than was expected and it would not represent value for money.  The conclusion is that no tender award should be made.

3.2    In light of this result, the Council will need to consider the future of the existing, interim, contingency arrangement to the 22,000 households already on the kerbside box scheme for glass which is split into north, south, east and west and is delivered by the Council.  Working with Cleansing Services to review how the pilot scheme could continue to be delivered, the Service believes that standardising the arrangements using appropriate fixed-term contract staff and hiring the necessary vehicles could be accommodated from within the budget allocated for the contract.

3.3    The Council has been projecting a year end 2014/15 recycling rate of around 44%.  Incorporating the new  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5d

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0     Relevant Background Information

1.1       In May 2014 the Department of the Environment issued to all Councils, a Departmental Direction and Guidance in relation to the introduction of expenditure controls for the period during which the 11 new councils will operate in shadow form.

2.0       Key Issues

2.1       The Departmental Direction is made under Section 10 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 2010 and states that existing councils may not, without the written consent of the new council:-

(a)   make any disposal of land, if the consideration for disposal exceeds £100,000;

(b)   enter into any capital contract where

ii       under which the consideration payable exceeds £250,000

iii     which includes a term allowing the consideration payable to be varied

(c)   enter into any non-capital contracts where consideration exceeds £100,000. Such contracts may include

ii       employment contracts (e.g. individual employment contracts over £100,000 over annum and fixed-term contracts of employment exceeding £100,000 in total over the fixed-term period)

iii     service contracts (e.g. asset maintenance contracts)

iiii    revenue contracts (e.g. accountancy or legal services)

            Members will note that a similar expenditure controls process was introduced by the DoE during the operation of the Statutory Transition Committee period.

2.2       It is important to note that the release of this guidance does not preclude the necessity to follow Belfast City Council Standing Orders and the associated processes for entering into contracts and land disposals, requiring approval through the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee and Full Council.

2.3       The guidance states that ‘Councils should have their three year capital plans and revenue expenditure forecasts examined and approved by the new council (in shadow form) at the beginning’ which would mean that only those transactions above and beyond that are in the three year capital plans and relevant expenditure forecasts would subsequently have to be referred to the new council (in shadow form).

2.4       The guidance further states that all other disposals, capital contracts and non-capital contracts and borrowings outside of the three-year capital plans and revenue expenditure forecasts should comply with the DoE direction as set out above.

2.5       Capital Contracts

            In July 2014 as part of the expenditure control process the Shadow Council endorsed the Council’s rolling Capital Programme as formally agreed by the Statutory Transition Committee. Capital contract commitments are processed in accordance with the agreed stage approval process within the capital programme reports.

2.6       The Council’s rolling capital programme was endorsed by the Shadow Council in February. There have been no further investment decisions  since this time.

2.7       Non-Capital Contracts

            Appendix 2 outlines the list of proposed non-capital contacts which have secured or are due to seek BCC approval. These are submitted for consideration and consent of the Committee and new council (operating in shadow form).

2.8       Land disposals/acquisitions

            Shadow Council in March 2015agreed to purchase lands at the junction of the Upper Ballygomartin Road and Springmartin Road to accommodate the Black Mountain Shared Space project  

2.9       Local Investment Fund

            Local Investment Fund  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5e

            The Committee was reminded that the Council’s Standing Orders 61, 62 and 63 determined how the Council managed the procurement of its contracts.  The general rule was that all procurements above the £30,000 threshold follow the United Kingdom and European Union legislative requirements.

            The Director of Property and Projects reported that Standing Order 62 set out how exceptions to the process should be managed whereby contracts could be entered into without following the legislation route.  Those were:

(a)  by direction of the Council;

(b)  in cases of extreme urgency; and

(c)  purchases through an auction.

            He pointed out that in cases of extreme urgency a Chief Officer must certify that that was the case, provided that they had first consulted with the Chairman of the appropriate Committee and the Director of Corporate Services (now the Director of Finance and Resources) and that the action was subsequently reported to the next meeting of that Committee.

            The Director explained that there had been three such extreme urgent cases in the previous month.  On each occasion a Chief Officer had certified that the procurement was of extreme urgency and, having consulted the Chairman of the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee and the Director of Finance and Resources, the procurements had been advanced.  All of those procurement exercises had been below the European Union threshold limits and were set out below:

·          the Council had approved the creation of a Director of Planning post to ensure that the necessary strategic direction and leadership was in place to deliver the new Planning function post 1st April, 2015 and a recruitment exercise had now been completed.  Should the recruitment exercise have failed to identify a suitable candidate to be appointed to the post or if an appointment had been made but there was a delay in securing a timely start date for the successful candidate, it was deemed prudent to have a contingency arrangement in place to commission the services of a suitably qualified person on an interim basis to provide Members with the assurance they required regarding the transfer of the Planning function.

·          the contract for environmental works at the North Foreshore had lapsed in anticipation of the proposed infrastructure work proceeding in conjunction with the development briefs being let for associated sites.  Only when the Council had understood the market interest and, therefore, the requirement to carry out further environmental work was it able to fully understand the extent of any new contractual requirements.  However, it had been deemed an urgent requirement to carry out movement of clay stockpiles which were in the vicinity of the proposed infrastructure works prior to the commencement of the works on site which had an extremely tight programme to meet the European Regional Development Funding requirements.

·          officers required specialist tax advice relating to the land tax and stamp duty implications of the contracts associated with the Council investment decision for new office accommodation. 

            The Committee noted the information which had been provided and that the contracts as set out  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5f

            The Director of Development submitted for the Committee’s consideration the undernoted report:

“1     Relevant Background Information

1.1    The City Centre Regeneration and Investment Strategy, which is currently out to public consultation, highlights the importance of world class events and the animation of the city centre as important elements of creating a vibrancy within the city centre, attracting overnight visitors and enhancing the international reputation of the city in the global market place.

1.2    The Belfast Integrated Tourism Strategy, which is also out to consultation similarly identifies ‘improving the quality and international appeal of the events and festivals on offer’ as one of the main improvements required in terms of developing tourism in the city.

1.3    The strategy highlights the need to develop a series of 6 ‘Signature Events’ that have the potential to attract out of state bed-nights and positive international publicity for the city.

1.4    This issue was picked up by the Development Committee when considering the issue of competing for international events and it was suggested that the Council develop a citywide Events and Festivals Strategy to inform the types of events and festivals that the Council should allocate resources to in the future. At its January meeting the Shadow SP&R Committee agreed to commission such a strategy.

1.5    The events which the council will want to consider fall into four broad categories:

1)     Large Scale International Events such as Giro d’Italia, MTV EMAs, Tall Ships and World Police and Fire Games;

2)     City Festivals which have the potential to attract tourists and have a positive economic benefit e.g. Belfast festival at Queens, Culture Night, Cathedral Quarter Arts Festival, Feile, Titanic Maritime Festival;

3)     Community based festivals which engage local communities, enhance civic pride and engender good relations and community engagement;

4)     Ad hoc requests for local business events such as Women in Business, Beltech, New York –New Belfast, Digital DNA etc.

1.6    With the exception of the annual events programme delivered by the Council’s own City Events Unit which is almost solely financed by the Council, almost every other event is funded through a cocktail of funding from various sources including Tourism NI, The Arts Council, DCAL and DSD. The sustainability of many of these events is now under threat due to the cuts in the Executive’s budget and the subsequent reductions in the budgets for events within various agencies moving forward. The announcement on 19^th March by Queens University withdrawing its funding from the Belfast Festival at Queens this year is an example of this and announcements from the Arts Council are also imminent.

1.7    The Director of Development is currently in the process of appointing a consultant to support the development of a Citywide Events and Festivals Strategy. This strategy will take into account the resources which will be available from other sources to support events in the city once those budgets become known. It is likely that the strategy will not be complete until the Summer and therefore will be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5g

            The Committee considered the undernoted report

“1        Relevant Background Information

1.1       The Council has been asked to respond to an inquiry by the Committee for Enterprise, Trade & Investment. The inquiry will consider the potential for economic growth and job creation associated with a reduction in corporation tax in Northern Ireland. The Inquiry will centre on how the two year period, up to the formal devolution of corporation tax varying powers in April 2017, can be used to maximise the potential of Northern Ireland as a region to attract investment, grow the economy and create jobs. The key focus for the Committee will be on the other economic drivers Northern Ireland can influence and must have right in order to maximise its potential.

1.2       The key areas for consideration are:

1.     What are the key economic drivers (other than low corporation tax) that the Executive can influence in order to maximise the potential of Northern Ireland to attract inward investment, grow the economy and create jobs?

2.     Which of these key economic drivers are considered priorities for the manufacturing sector?

3.     Which of these key economic drivers are considered priorities for the services sector?

4.     How well is each of the priority economic drivers currently developed in Northern Ireland to support inward investment, economic growth and job creation?

5.     What actions need to be taken, and by whom, to address any gaps in the priority economic drivers?

1.3       The following list of economic drivers has been suggested:

·        Access to Finance

·        Access to Markets

·        Access to Suppliers

·        Business Regulation

·        Communications Infrastructure

·        Energy Costs

·        English Language

·        Government Support (Financial)

·        Government Support (Practical)

·        Higher and Further Education

·        Innovation and R&D Environment

·        Labour Costs

·        Labour Relations

·        Lifestyle

·        Living Standards

·        Macroeconomic factors

·        Political Climate (national)

·        Political Climate (regional)

·        Productivity

·        Public Transport Infrastructure

·        Road and Rail Networks

·        Security

·        Skills and Education

1.4       We were made aware of the inquiry on the 4th February 2015 and comments were required to be returned by the 10th March 2015. As this timescale would not have allowed the issue to be considered by committee, officers negotiated an extension to the deadline to allow the response to be considered by Committee.

2          Key Issues

2.1      The request for a response to the inquiry was distributed to officers across Council so that their contributions could be included in a provisional response. This draft response to the inquiry is included in Appendix 1.

2.2       The Council is already involved in programmes to attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), grow the economy and create jobs. For example, the Investment Programme, the draft Integrated Economic Strategy and the City Centre Regeneration Strategy and Investment Plan. These programmes have been informed by various studies, which are relevant to this inquiry, including Centre for Cities. (2015) ‘Cities Outlook’ and Oxford Economics. (2011) ‘Research into the competitiveness of Belfast.’ The draft response to the inquiry outlines these pertinent points from this research and our strategies.

2.3       The draft response covers the following main points:

2.4       A review of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5h

            The Director of Development submitted for the Committee’s consideration the undernoted report:

“1.0  Relevant Background Information 

1.1    This paper is to outline our current non-grant financial support arrangements with organisations who deliver services on our behalf across the city and to seek committee approval to extend the arrangements for 2015/16 in respect of:

·        Independently management community Centres

·        Anchor Tenants

·        Service Level Agreement with Play Resource

         The report also notes the impact of LGR and proposes related contract extensions.

1.2    Current status: Community Services currently supports community development organisations across the city in a number of ways, these include:

1.3   The independent community centre model: This facilitates the management arrangements for a number of neighbourhood centres, historically owned by BCC but for which committee have approved a move to community management and associated lease agreements.  These agreements have evolved over a period of time and appear to have been reactive and usually either as an initiative by BCC to address under usage of centres via working in partnership with the local geographical community or as a direct response to community requests.  While the traditional focus of the centres was on sports and recreation activities, input from Community Services staff has supported the development of broader programmes to address community needs.  The range of broad based community programmes varies across each of the independently managed centres, that is, Grosvenor Recreation Centre, Shaftsbury Recreation Centre, Ballymacarrett Recreation Centre, Carrickhill Community Centre, Denmark Street Community Centre and Percy Street Community Centre.

         The model comprises a lease agreement with each of the community development organisations with supporting financial resource which is received net of any rent allocation. This financial support is agreed annually by committee report and includes access for groups to our small community grant programme including summer scheme and project grants.  The benefits of the independently managed structure for BCC owned community centres are: 

·        greater independence and quicker response to local need.

·        greater opportunities for local people to shape services

·        increased local employment

·        opportunity to access a wider range of grant aid.

·        greater involvement of local people

·        ability to provide services in a more cost effective way than a directly managed facility.

1.4    Anchor Tenant support – BCC community centres currently deliver community based services in close association with local community organisations some of whom receive grant support for their own buildings. The Markets Development Agency received revenue grant until 2013 but needed to vacant their premises.  In conversation, it was agreed they should take up office space in the Markets Community Centre as an ‘anchor tenant’.  This arrangement was piloted in 2014 and is currently managed through the centre booking system rather than a formal anchor tenant agreement. The group no longer receive a revenue grant given many of their overhead costs are met by the BCC community centre budget however they continue to receive a small grant to cover other continuing costs such as telephone, insurance, etc. The arrangement has strengthened local relationships and allowed a more targeted delivery programme at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5i

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0     Relevant Background Information 

1.1       At the Shadow SP&R Committee on 20th February Members agreed the boundaries for new area working groups comprising 4 AWGs based on a combination of the 10 District Electoral Areas across Belfast 

-       Area 1: North (2 DEAs) – Castle and Oldpark

-       Area 2: South (2 DEAs) – Botanic and Balmoral

-       Area 3: East (3 DEAs) - Titanic; Ormiston and Lisnasharragh

-       Area 4: West (3 DEAs)- Court; Black Mountain and Collin

1.2       Work on revised Terms of Reference for the new AWGs is underway and a report will be brought to the Committee in the coming months on this.

2.0       Establishment of Local Investment Fund 2

2.1       The current £5million LIF programme was established in 2012 under the Investment Programme and was designed to support the delivery of local regeneration projects in neighbourhoods and as a way for Members to connect with their local communities.  LIF has been successful with over 60 projects worth over £4.85m allocated in principle funding of which 20 projects are already complete; 9 are currently on the ground with a further 28 are at tender preparation stage.

2.2       Recognising the benefits of LIF at an area level and the outcomes which have accrued from this, Members have agreed the need for a LIF 2 programme. It is proposed that £4million is reallocated from the Belfast Investment Fund reserves to a new LIF 2 programme. 

            LIF - Options for Allocation Model for LIF2 and the new AWG Boundaries

2.3       The current LIF programme was allocated on an equal basis across the former North, South, East and West (£1,127,500) with a proportional allocation to the Shankill (£490,000).  The revised boundaries under the LGR mean that there are now 10 DEAs in the Belfast area. Both the new West and East AWGs are made up of three DEAs and therefore have larger overall populations and also a larger number of Members per AWG area. Given this, the Committee is asked to give consideration to an option of allocating monies for LIF2 on a proportional basis based on the number of DEAs in an AWG rather than an equal allocation per area.

2.4       On the basis of the future AWGs which have been agreed by Committee this option would mean the following –

2.5       It  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6a

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 30th January, it had been advised that the Department of the Environment Northern Ireland Agency had declared surplus a site of approximately fourteen acres at the Old Golf Course Road, Dunmurry.  The Land and Property Services agency had sought expressions of interest for the acquisition of the site in accordance with D1 Disposal of Surplus Public Sector Land procedures.  A preliminary expression of interest in the land had been submitted by the Council to the Agency.  The Director reminded the Members that the site fell within the current Lisburn City Council area that would come into the new Belfast City Council boundary on 1st April, 2015.  The land was currently a formal open space and comprised two plots which had been zoned as an area of Existing Open Space and designated as an Urban Landscape Wedge and Community Greenway in the Belfast Metropolitan Area Plan 2015.  He pointed out that the Committee had noted at its previous meeting in January that a report would be submitted when the terms of the disposal were available in order to seek the Committee’s direction on whether to proceed.

            The Director explained that Land and Property Services had subsequently valued the site for the Environment Agency, although the Agency had been advised that it had received authorisation from the Environment Minister that the land could be transferred to the Council by way of a gift on the condition that all the land was retained as open space for public access.

            The site comprised informal, semi-wild scrub land and trees.  As such, minimal maintenance should be required in its current layout.  Any future maintenance and management costs would vary depending on eventual end use but at the moment it was understood that the local community was keen to retain the land as an environmental resource.  Future upgrading works could potentially be undertaken on a phased basis if funding became available at a later stage and there might be opportunities to seek external funding.  In the interim, the Council could undertake an initial clean up of the site and retain it as an informal open space.  Any acquisition of the site, however, would be subject to satisfactory title and site investigations and work was currently underway in that regard.

            The Committee approved the acquisition of the land from the Department of the Environment Northern Ireland Environment Agency on the basis as outlined, subject to detailed terms to be agreed by the Estates Manager and the Town Solicitor.

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1        Relevant Background Information

            The Council is currently leading on a number of significant regeneration projects within the city as part of its Investment Programme.  The North Foreshore Giant’s Park represents a major regeneration opportunity for the City of Belfast with the potential for significant economic, environmental and social benefits.  Members will be aware that the North Foreshore Giant’s Park is the former Dargan Road waste landfill comprising 340 acres.   Whilst the site has many benefits in terms of location, planning designation, scale of opportunity etc, as a former landfill site it does however present a number of challenges in terms of development.  

1.2       The Council had previously agreed that the North Foreshore should be developed as an Environmental Resource Park with potential for a ‘Cleantech Business Cluster’, as well as for recreational uses. The vision is to create opportunities for sustainable development and to bring significant economic, environmental and social benefits to the city.  The Council’s Investment Programme 2012 – 2015 identified the development of an Environmental Resource Park at the North Foreshore as one of the key strategic projects.

1.3       Members will be aware that the Council submitted a £8M European Regional Development Fund Application for identified infrastructure works for an Environmental Resource Park. These infrastructure works comprise new access roads and identified services and site preparation works to provide sites that can be offered for disposal (by way of lease) on the open market.  The Council has recently received a Letter of Offer for this funding, based on £4M from ERDF, £2 million from INI with the remainder to be funded by BCC. 

1.4       A report was brought to the Shadow Strategic Policy & Resources Committee on 16 January 2015 and approval was given to progress with the tender for the infrastructure works.  This tender has been issued and is due to be returned on 2 April 2015.   Subject to the Council agreeing to progress with the project and signing the Letter of Offer, it is intended to simultaneously run a marketing campaign for the disposal of the development sites whilst the infrastructure works are being developed.  

1.5       Best practice study visits were recently undertaken by a number of Elected Members, MLA’s and officers to Metabolon (Germany) and VITO (Belgium) and to Eden (Cornwall). A copy of a report has been circulated presenting the key findings and actions from these study visits in relation to the North Foreshore.

1.6       Following these study visits, a follow up meeting was held with the Elected Members who attended the visits.  The feedback from Members at this meeting was that they considered that development of the North Foreshore was a significant and important project for the Council, given its potential to have a major impact on the economy as well as the environmental and social outcomes. 

1.7       It was recognised however that there will need to be strong political support to champion and drive the project forward, give full consideration to development proposals as they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6c

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0  Relevant background information

1.1    At its meeting in August, the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee considered a report outlining a community benefits partnership approach for the stadia programme in Belfast, as required by the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL).  The SP&R Committee agreed the objectives for the ‘Enhanced Sports Development Programme’ and agreed a financial contribution of £100,000 per annum over 10 years for the purposes of the programme.

         They noted that discussions were ongoing with the three sports governing bodies (Irish Football Association, Gaelic Athletic Association and Irish Rugby Football Union) to determine their match funding contribution, but that all had expressed a commitment to this effect. 

1.2    All stakeholders to the ‘Belfast Community Benefits Initiative’ – DCAL, Council and the three sports governing bodies – recognise the once-in-a-generation opportunity of the investments and are committed to maximising the potential catalyst for wider social, economic and environmental regeneration. 

         The overarching purpose of the initiative is to: Ensure that the public investment in the stadia and surrounding areas improves the quality of life now and for future generations, especially those who are socially marginalised and excluded across the city.

2.0    Key issues

2.1    DCAL expects the Belfast Community Benefits Initiative to produce a well developed working draft of a Memorandum of Understanding by 31 March 2015, including:

-       the minimum financial contributions, each will make to the Belfast Community Benefits Initiative each year (and the minimum period of time);

-       the proposed benefits;

-       specific, measurable targets; and

-       details of the governance structure, including roles and responsibilities.

-        

         The Memorandum of Understanding must be signed in sufficient time ahead of 30 April 2015 to allow Belfast City Council to draw down the first project payment from DCAL.

         Over the past number of months, discussions have taken place to develop the Memorandum of Understanding.  In line with Committee agreements to date, work on the proposed benefits, specific, measurable targets and the governance is well underway

2.2    It was anticipated that the partners would co-fund a joint team of sports development / community engagement officers and associated work programmes. 

         In seeking to determine the financial contribution from the partners for this purpose, both the Irish Football Association and Irish Rugby Football Union have stated that their contribution to the Belfast Community Benefits Initiative, will be through core-funded staff already in post. 

         The Gaelic Athletic Association has indicated that it remains their intention to provide finance for a central resource, although will not be in a position to confirm the final amount until the new financial year.

2.3  In the DCAL letter of offer to the Council in respect of the Olympia development, it states:

         ‘With effect from the Completion Date, the Grantee shall make a minimum contribution of £100,000 each year for a minimum period of 10 years (so that a minimum of £1,000,000 is contributed in total) to the Belfast Community Benefits Initiative.’

         In discussions with DCAL,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6d

            The Committee was reminded that, with effect from 1st April, 2015, the Council would be responsible for the ownership of all the Department for Regional Development (DRD) off-street car parks, their management and enforcement, with the exception of Park and Ride and Park and Share car parks.  The Department was currently drafting the Assets Transfer Scheme and it was anticipated that responsibility for thirty car parks would transfer to the Council, including ownership of twenty-four, with the remaining six to be leased by the Council.

            The Head of Environmental Health pointed out that the Transition Committee, at its meeting on 18th August, 2014, had granted authority to officers to progress the development of a Service Level Agreement between the Council and the Department for Regional Development to continue to provide the current systems for parking regulation within off-street car parks between 1st April, 2015 and October, 2016. 

            The Asset Transfer Scheme was currently in a draft format and was being scrutinised by relevant Council officers.  Amendments would be requested to the Scheme in order to ensure it fully satisfied the Council’s requirements, with the final Transfer Scheme being reported to the Committee when received from the Department.  A copy of the proposed Agency Agreement had been circulated and a copy was produced on the Council’s website.  The document had been scrutinised by officers of the Council’s Legal Services Section and Health and Environmental Services Department and they had been satisfied with its contents.  The Agreement applied to the seventeen charged car parks transferring to the Council and would take effect on the 1st April, 2015 and remain in force until 31st October, 2016.  The contract value was estimated at approximately £280,000 over the eighteen month term of the Agreement.  The Agency Agreement, which would be supported by a detailed Technical Specification, allowed enforcement of off-street car parks within the Council boundary to be provided for by the Department.  Those documents allowed the Council to satisfy itself that the service provided would assist the Council in fulfilling its statutory obligations.

            The Chief Executive reported that aspects of the service to be provided by the Department on behalf of the Council included:

·        Off-street Enforcement

·        Cash Collection

·        Pay and Display (“P&D”) Machine Maintenance

·        Car Park Cleaning, Plant and General Maintenance

·        Penalty Charge Notice (“PCN”) Processing

            Effective enforcement through the issuing of PCNs was essential to optimise car park usage, therefore benefiting City Centre accessibility and the local economy.  It was important to note that there were no targets or incentives for Traffic Attendants to issue PCNs and all appeals in that regard would be dealt with through an independent appeals process and neither Council officers nor Elected Members would be involved in decisions regarding the issuing or appeal of individual PCNs.  Clamping of vehicles and vehicle removal would be used as a means of debt recovery where an individual had three outstanding unpaid PCNs owed to the Council.

            The Committed approved the contents of the Agency Agreement and that the Council be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6e

            The Committee was reminded that currently the minutes of the meetings of the Good Relations Partnership and the Diversity Working Group and any recommendation within those minutes were submitted to the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee for adoption and approval, subject to ratification by the full Council.  However, during this period of change there was a number of issues which fell within the remit of those Groups but due to the timeframes and budgetary implications would become the responsibility of the new Council and therefore required approval by the Shadow Strategic Policy and Resources Committee.

            The Committee proceeded to consider in turn each of the undernoted extracts of the minutes of the aforementioned Groups:

Appendix 1

Good Relations Partnership – Minutes of 9th February, 2015

“Good Relations Action Plan 2015/16

      The Good Relations Manager reminded the Members that, each year, the Council submitted an annual Action Plan to the Office of the First Minister and deputy First Minister (OFMdFM) in order to draw down funding for the Good Relations work of the Council.  The Action Plan would be 75% funded by OFMdFM, while the remaining 25% would be included in the Council’s 2015/16 budget.  She explained that correspondence had been received advising that the Action Plan must be submitted by 27th February in order to be scored and assessed.  She explained that the Good Relations Unit had updated the audit which had been carried out in January and February 2014, in order to incorporate any issues which had been identified in those areas which would come into the Belfast boundary from April, 2015.

      The Partnership agreed to recommend to the Shadow Strategic Policy and Resources Committee that it approves the Good Relations Action Plan 2015/2016 for submission to OFMdFM. The Partnership also noted that the Action Plan submission would be subject to alteration and amendment during the assessing and scoring process which would be undertaken by OFMdFM and that the Partnership would be notified of any changes in the final approved Action Plan at a later date.”

Good Relations Partnership – Minutes of 9th March, 2015

“Good Relations Grant Aid Funding – Tranche 1

      The Members considered the undernoted report:

“1        Relevant Background Information

1.1       The first tranche of funding under Good Relations and Summer Intervention Grant Aid for activities taking place between 1st April 2015 and 30th September 2015 closed on 21st January 2015. The application pack also included other small grants across Council as part of the Corporate Grants project.

2          Key Issues

2.1       By the closing date of applications, the Good Relations Fund had received 94 applications totalling approximately £550,000. and the Summer Intervention Fund had received 70 applications to be scored a later date.

            The Good Relations Fund is co funded by OFMDFM (75%) and Belfast City Council and the Summer Intervention Fund is fully funded by OFMDFM at 100%.

2.2       As the grants under the Good Relations Fund are aimed at activities taking place between 1st April 2015 and 30th September 2015, these have been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7a

            The Committee was advised that the Good Relations Partnership, at its meeting on 9th March, had considered a report on the Review of Bonfire Management and had agreed to defer the matter to enable further information to be obtained.  Subsequently, the Strategic Policy and Resources Committee on 13th March, in considering the minutes of the Good Relations Partnership, had agreed that the aforementioned report be submitted directly to the Shadow Strategic Policy and Resources Committee for consideration.  A copy of the aforementioned report and an extract of the minutes of the Good Relations Partnership is set out hereunder:

“1        Relevant Background Information

1.1       At the Good Relations Partnership meeting on 11th August 2014, members made a recommendation to the SP&R Committee that an external consultant be appointed to review the Bonfire Management Programme (BMP) to provide members with the necessary information to make an informed proposal to Council with regard to the future of any similar programme.

1.2       To move forward with this work an external consultant, Lindsay Advisory, were appointed in December, 2014 with the terms of reference for this work to including the following:

-       to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the Bonfire Management Programme 2014 including an analysis of its development since 2005;

-       to give consideration to those bonfires currently not part of the BMP, and;

-       to provide options for any future Programme based on the review and evaluation of the current delivery model and the impact of Local Government Reform on Belfast City Council.

1.3       Over the past few months the consultants have met with or spoke to 50 plus stakeholders including elected members, community groups involved in the programme, BCC officers and external partners in order to get a wide range of feedback with regards to how the programme (if any) should be delivered in the future.

1.4       The following report outlines some of the key findings contained in the review and points for members to consider.  It is worth pointing out that this is subject to the partnership making a recommendation to Shadow SP&R committee to seek approval  from Council to proceed with any future BMP.  At this stage there is no approval to implement a programme for 2015.

2          Key Issues

2.1       Following on from this consultation exercise, a draft report has been produced (see executive summary attached) and the overall consensus from the review was that there is continued support for the concept of a BMP which is made on the basis of findings including the following:

ii       feedback suggests that the PUL community feel supported through this programme and may disengage if it was discontinued

iii     there would be a missed opportunity to further develop the work that happens with regards to reducing the number of August bonfires if the programme was discontinued

iiii    the impact of withdrawal may mean more bonfires, and significantly more environmental and social issues at bonfires

ivi    there could be a significant resource cost to council and partners to address issues at  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7b

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1.0  Relevant Background Information

1.1    The Department for Regional Development announced the preferred option for the York Street Interchange (YSI) in December 2012. The preferred option proposes the full grade separation of movement between the Westlink, M2 and M3. Grade separation is provided via underpasses below the Lagan Bridge and Dargan Bridge. York Street would be partially raised to accommodate the underlying links. All north facing slip roads at Clifton Street remain open in the proposed layout.

1.2    DRD Transport NI has now completed Stage 3 assessment of the scheme and this work has included the completion of an Environmental Impact Assessment, in accordance with the requirements of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. The DRD Minister announced the formal consultation on the Environmental Statement for the proposed York Street Interchange on 27th January 2015.

1.3    DRD Transport NI anticipates that following this stage of public consultation there will be a Public Inquiry (possibly late 2015), with construction beginning 2017/18 and the proposed scheme completed by April 2021.

1.4    A Strategic Advisory Group has been set up by DRD Transport NI to provide strategic guidance to facilitate the integration of York Street Interchange with other government and private initiatives and also to review the scheme aesthetics. The Council are represented on this group along with representatives from DSD, Planning NI, Arts Council, FAB and Transport NI.

2.0    Key Issues

2.1    A draft response has been circulated for consideration and a summary of the main issues is outlined below.

         It is suggested that the Council welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Statement for the York Street Interchange as part of the Stage 3 Assessment public consultation process.

         The York Street Interchange is highlighted in the Council’s draft City Centre Regeneration Strategy and Investment Plan as a significant project for the city. It is suggested that careful design is required for connecting north / south routes for pedestrian and cyclists and creative solutions are needed to reduce the visual impact of the interchange and make use of otherwise dead space required. The Plan suggests ‘Underpass Projects’ to improve the visual impact and pedestrian connectivity through the M3 and York Street Interchange through public art, landscaping interventions and community sports facilities.

         The Council will continue to work with DRD and other partners through the Strategic Advisory Forum to consider actions to minimise the impact of the scheme on the adjoining residential areas and to consider the aesthetics and finishes of the road proposal. The Council are also keen to assess the regeneration opportunities of surplus land parcels resulting from the proposed development at an early stage to maximise the potential benefit for the city. It should be noted that the YSI proposal will impact on one of the DRD off street car parks which will be transferred to Council ownership in April 2015. 

         It is suggested that the Council request DRD to reconsider the use of on road cycle lanes and shared bus  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8a

            The Committee was reminded that the Shadow Council on 8th December had passed the following motion:

      “Belfast District Council urges the Department for Regional Development to implement measures permitting the use of bus lanes by all vehicles at times at chronic congestion as a result of an emergency situation; thereby saving thousands of lost working hours to the economy of our City”.

            The Committee was advised that a letter had been forwarded to the Department outlining the Council’s decision and a response from the Minister’s secretary had been received on 8th January.  The response had pointed out that, whilst the current legislation did not empower the Department to suspend bus lanes, a Constable in uniform could exercise his or her discretion to permit all vehicles to use bus lanes in times of emergency.  Such a decision, it was pointed out, should be taken only with a view to ensuring that the travelling public would be informed in a timely manner in order to avoid confusion.

                  The Committee had noted the receipt of the response from the Minister and agreed that a letter be forwarded to the Police Service of Northern Ireland seeking its views on when it would exercise its discretion to permit all vehicles to use bus lanes in times of emergency.

                  The Democratic Services Manager reported that a response had now been received from the Road Policing Development Unit.  The letter stated that the Road Traffic (NI) Order 1995 governed adherence to traffic signs and provided for an exemption in circumstances where a “Constable in uniform” directs traffic to proceed in a manner which was at variance with the sign.  It continued: “So where a police officer is on the ground and directed traffic to use the bus lane, then no motorist complying with the direction shall be guilty of an office.  Alternatively, where a pre-notified event, such as a public strike was to occur, the police had in the past agreed with the Department for Regional Development Transport NI, that enforcement of the bus lanes should be suspended to facilitate traffic flow.  When that had occurred the public had been advised in advance via the BBC traffic bulletins and the NI Trafficwatch website.”

            The Committee noted the contents of the response from the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

            The Committee considered a report in relation to the Corporate Plan 2015/16 and Organisational Development and Improvement which highlighted information in relation to the following:

·        The draft Corporate Plan for the first year of operation of the new Council;

·        A feedback report from the recently completed peer challenge exercise which had been carried out to ensure that the Council was fit for purpose to fulfil its ambitions for the City and the organisation; and

·        The proposed approach to on-going organisational development and design.

            Corporate Plan 2015/16

            The Chief Executive explained that the Corporate Plan was a key document for managing the Council’s strategic business. It set out what the Council wanted to achieve in the city and the key priority actions to make that happen.  It was proposed that the Corporate Plan for the new Council would be for the year 2015/16 only, to allow elected Members more time to consider and refine their priorities for Belfast in line with the Belfast Agenda and ensure that all the plans and strategies of the organisation aligned to those.  It would also allow the new committees to consider their strategic priorities and commitments for the duration of the new Council.  The draft Corporate Plan for 2015/16 had been shaped by elected Members discussions on a number of strategic issues, through workshops and other engagement sessions with key stakeholders.

            Creating a Fit for Purpose Council –

            Organisational Improvement and Development

            The Members had also been considering how to make the Council fit for purpose to deliver an ambitious city agenda and had already made changes the Council’s governance structures to create committees that were more aligned to the achievement of city and local outcomes.

            To support the Council’s transformation and improvement, the elected Members had agreed that a peer review would be carried out earlier in the year.  The Council had been assessed by a team comprising peer elected Members and senior local government officers against the following key competencies:

·        Understanding of local context and priority setting

·        Financial planning and viability

·        Political and managerial leadership

·        Governance and decision-making

·        Organisational capacity

            The findings of the peer review had been presented by the review team to elected Members on 5th March and the team’s full report had been circulated to the Committee.  The Corporate Plan set out the Council’s commitment to taking forward implementation of the recommendations of the peer review in the year ahead.

            The Corporate Plan summarised the key actions the Council would undertake in the year ahead and was intended to be a brief and high level document.  It would be supported by operational plans and Committee plans which would be agreed by Members in the first months of the new Council.  The performance indicators specified by the Department of the Environment were included in the plan and regular updates on progress against the objectives and indicators would be submitted to the Committee, helping to ensure that our improvement objectives remained relevant and that the best arrangements for delivering them were in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12.

            The Committee considered a report which had been submitted by the Community Development Manager in relation to recommendation for Generalist Advice Funding 2015/16.

            The Community Development Manager reported that, the Statutory Transition Committee in April 2014, had agreed to progress to an open call process for the Community Development Programme 2015-17, which was managed by Community Services, including Generalist Advice, Capacity and Revenue (Community Buildings). The purpose of the Generalist Advice Funding was to support core costs and associated programme costs, offering longer term sustainability for Belfast based Generalist Advise organisations that had full time staff and ongoing annual costs, and that produced work that substantially benefited the City.  The report provided the Committee with recommendations for Generalist Advice Funding for year one, from 2015-16, however, proposals were also sought for 2016-17 should the Council agree to extend contracts in this year.

            The report outlined rationale for the funding allocations, details of the allocations received, the criteria for decision making and the following recommendations for funding:

            The Committee noted the information which had been provided and approved the recommendations for Generalist Advice Funding as set out.

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 13th February, it had considered a progress report in relation to the Community Development Grand Aid Programme for 2015/16.

            The Committee had agreed the proposed area allocation model for Advice Grants, but had requested officers to revisit the proposed quality threshold and band qualifiers presented for the Capacity and Revenue grant categories.  Any amendments should allow the Council to fund a larger number of organisations, and thus more local community based services, while continuing to offer a significant individual grant contribution.  Furthermore, by reviewing and reducing the threshold and band qualifiers, additional funds would ensure groups with lower capacity, or those who were first time applicants to the Council would not be disadvantaged when compared to groups which had a higher capacity or a longer-term working relationship with the Council.

            The Community Development Manager reported that officers be now proposing that the quality threshold score for both grant categories were reduced to 50%.  They would further suggest that the Committee agree a fourth funding band which would give a smaller grant offer to those eligible applicants who had not achieved the proposed quality threshold score.  That would reflect the Committee discussion to support organisations during this transitional period to allow them to address any identified weaknesses in their applications in relations to both organisational governance and programme content.  It that was acceptable, any agreed funding would be conditional on the applicant group agreeing to accept funding capacity development support from Community Services staff.  The new recommended bands were as follows:

“i   Capacity Grant

Reduce the quality threshold score to 50% and apply individual grants across the following 4 funding bands:

Note:

Band A - > 70% offer max grant of £42,200

Band B - > 60%<70% offer max grant of £28,150

Band C - > 50%<60% offer max grant of £23,500

Band D - < 50% offer max grant of £15,000

NB This financial value of this band would be reviewed pending confirmation of the total additional budget available

If agreed this would allow council to offer financial support to 20 organisations to a

value of £618,524.22.  The total additional budget made available from non recurrent finance will inform the value of the individual grant allocation to the remaining 9 groups in the new Band D category but it is proposed these would not exceed £15,000.

ii.   Community Buildings Revenue Grant

Apply a quality threshold score of 50% but fund all eligible applications which fail to attain this score through the introduction of a fourth category which is capped no matter what the size of the building or the programme. 

Note:

CALCULATION OF AWARD based on size of building & community programme.

30-50 points at F= Grade One

51-90 points at F= Grade Two

91 points or more at F= Grade Three

Grade 1 facilities - receive up to £6,500

Grade 2 facilities - receive up to £13,000

Grade 3 facilities - receive up to £18,000

Grade 4 facilities - receive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13b

            The Committee noted the contents of a report in relation to the transfer of assets and liabilities to the Council from Castlereagh Borough Council and Lisburn City Council and noted also that correspondence had been sent to the Department of the Environment requesting it to invoke a process of arbitration for dealing with areas of dispute.

            The Committee considered a report which outlined proposals for the future use and management of the City Hall.

            The Committee was advised that reports had been presented to the Committee on a number of occasions in respect of various aspects of the future use and management of the City Hall building and, whilst they had been discussed in depth, no firm decisions on management had been made.

            The Director of Property and Projects pointed out that those reports had highlighted the fact that the City Hall hosted in excess of 300 functions annually in the 3 prestige function rooms and, in virtually all cases, the use of the building was provided to the approved function organiser at no cost, with the associated security, cleaning, supervision, cloak-room, bar staffing costs and utility costs being absorbed by the Council.  In addition, there were no charges for public or private tours of the building which would help offset the increasing staffing costs associated with providing the tours.

            The Committee was reminded also that representations had been received from local businesses pointing out that free provision of prestigious venues such as the Great Hall or Banqueting Hall was having an adverse impact on their ability to let their own facilities at competitive market rates.

            In light of the above, and the Council’s efficiency agenda, it was appropriate for the Committee to now consider the situation in which the City Hall was routinely provided free of charge for the full range of events which had an external focus and which had little or no specific relationship with the City or the Council or its wider aims and objectives.  If Members were minded to change the situation, there were three main ways in which the use of the City Hall for functions and events could be more effectively controlled, namely:

(a)   revision of the criteria governing access to the building for functions and events;

(b)   imposing a charge for some/all types of functions as a way of rationing access and recovering some of the associated costs; and

(c)   ration access in other ways for some/all types of events and functions (for example by applying a “once-in-three-years” approach).

            The report provided details on how these issues could be managed and addressed and a number of other additional City Hall related issues, such as requests for the ILLUMINATE (LED) lighting system of the City Hall’s three main facades, the operation of the proposed new Exhibition Area in the City Hall; and the opening of the City Hall main gates.

            After discussion, the Committee agreed to:

(a)   the revision of the criteria governing access to the function areas in the City Hall with a report to be submitted to a future meeting;

(b)   the introduction of charging for external functions which were commercial in nature;

(c)   the introduction of a “one-in-three-years” approach for events and functions held in the City Hall;

(d)   the application of a charge for commercial tour operators;

(e)   the submission of a further report on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13e

            The Committee considered a report which provided an update in relation to the Capital Development as part of the Leisure Transformation Programme.

            At its meeting in July 2013, the council had agreed to allocate £105m in terms of capital expenditure to renew its leisure estate.  In line with the capital financing strategy agreed by the Council, capital financing to support £85m of that expenditure would be secured by 2016/17 and the Director of Finance and Resources had anticipated that the Council would have the ability to close the gap over the period of the capital expenditure programme.

            The Council’s approach in broad terms has been to take decisions in three phases:

            Phase I: to optimise strategic opportunities in relation to the Investment                                  Programme for example stadia development programme;

            Phase II: to address leisure provision in areas transferring under the reform of             local government; and

            Phase III – to take a strategic ‘One Public Estate’ approach to the remainder of      the estate.

            In addition, the Council had a agreed a number of strategic principles to guid its investment.

            The report outlined the proposed next steps in each of the three phases and indicated that the total spend would be as follows:

            After discussion, the Committee agreed:

(1)   to authorise officers to develop the Leisure Transformation Programme capital investment plan as outlined, to refine costs, messaging and other details;

(2)   Phase II: in relation to Avoniel, to the disposal of the land, conditional upon the alignment of delivery timelines with the Belfast Education and Library Board, optimising the integration of the two designs and consideration being given to the potential for single delivery contract.  That would, however, be subject to Council officers confirming that the disposal of the land would not adversely impact upon the Council’s own future leisure development proposals for the site and the Board confirming that it would either relocate the Play Centre and playground at its expense on Belfast Education and Library Board land or alternatively fund a replacement on Council-owned land and agree to the terms of land acquisition as determined by the Land and Property Services agency;

(3)   Phase II: in relation to the Templemore Baths, a match funding limit of up to £7m, in order that a full application might be made at the earliest opportunity to the Heritage Lottery Fund for the re-development of wet facilities in the Inner East Area; and

(4)   Phase II: that officers develop an engagement process for the design and development of the Robinson Centre and the Brook Activity Centre.