Agenda and minutes

            Apologies for inability to attend were reported from Councillors Mac Giolla Mhín, Ó Muilleoir and Spence.

            (The Town Solicitor and Assistant Chief Executive attended in connection with this item).

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 6th March, it had requested that further clarification be sought from the Town Solicitor and Assistant Chief Executive in respect of the requirement for Members to withdraw from meetings whilst items in which they had declared an interest were under consideration by the Committee.  Accordingly, the Town Solicitor and Assistant Chief Executive drew the Committee’s attention to various aspects of the Council’s policy and answered a range of Members’ queries. He pointed out that the advice within the policy was unambiguous in that in all cases where a Member had declared an interest, pecuniary or otherwise, it was expected that he or she should leave the room whilst the matter was under discussion and this applied equally to Committee and Council meetings. He indicated that further advice and training would be provided to Members in respect of the policy.

Noted.

            In respect of item 5b, viz., ‘Employment Services Board – Request for Assistance’, Councillor McVeigh indicated that he was a member of the Employment Services Board, but pointed out that this was in a personal capacity and not within his remit as an Elected Member.

            It was reported that no requests had been received.

With the permission of the Chairman, the Committee was informed that the Council had submitted a number of applications in various categories for the Northern Ireland Tourism Awards, which would be hosted by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, and which were due to take place on 21st May at the Grand Opera House.  The Director reported that the Council’s applications had included both the MTV Music Awards and the Belfast Zoo. Since the awards ceremony was considered to be one of the most significant events in the tourism and hospitality calendar, it was pointed out that it would be important that the Council was represented thereat.  Accordingly, the Director recommended that the Committee agree to reserve a table for ten persons at the event, at a total cost of £750, for the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of both the Development and Parks and Leisure Committees (or their nominees), together with the appropriate officers and invited guests.

The Committee adopted the recommendation.

Retail Support Plan 2012/2013

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1        Relevant Background Information

1.1       The purpose of this paper is to provide Members with an overview of proposed Council support for the development of Belfast’s independent retail sector during 2012/2013.

1.2       Members will be aware from previous meetings of the Development Committee that Belfast City Council has been particularly proactive in supporting a wide range of initiatives to assist in the development and promotion of the independent retail sector across the City.  Support for the independent retail sector also forms part of the Council’s new Investment Programme and there is a commitment to continued investment in the sector over the lifetime of this programme.

1.3       Members will also be aware that the Council provides significant support to Belfast City Centre Management (BCCM) to provide an interface between council and local businesses within the city centre and to deliver specific services on behalf of the Council within this area.

            One of the key areas of work for BCCM is to improve economic performance for city centre businesses, the majority of which are retailers.  Of the retailers in the city centre, it is anticipated that around 50% can be categorised as “independent” traders. However, BCCM also provide an important interface with the larger retailers and the shopping centres, and this can provide council with a wider perspective of the challenges faced by the broader retail sector.

2          Key Issues

2.1       A thriving independent retail sector is important for the vitality and variety of our city, and Council has been instrumental in developing and delivering a number of initiatives, particularly over the last three years. Equally, the sector is dependent on a vibrant economy and, in the current climate, the retail sector – and in particular independent retailers – are under considerable pressure to sustain their business.

2.2       The Belfast Business Needs Survey 2011 has provided up to date research on the size and subsequent needs of the retail sector in Belfast. This research, teamed with discussions with the retail sector, has allowed Council to identify a range of targeted interventions that will help fill gaps in provision that have been identified by independent retailers and key stakeholders across the city.

2.3       The Belfast Business Needs survey noted that 56% of retailers in the city were particularly concerned at the inactivity and impact of the economic climate on their business. Retailers also raised concerns about competition and the rising cost of supplies. These issues were mirrored in discussions with retailers who also noted difficulties in promoting their unique independent retail offering and in marketing this to both Belfast residents and tourists. The Business Survey also noted the key areas of support of interest to retailers including trading online, sales development and business planning.

2.4       While the majority of council support to date has focused on independent retailers, we also work with larger retailers to see how they can support our activities and complement the offering. One example of this is our work  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1  Relevant Background Information

1.1       2012 has been recognised as the International Year of Co-operatives by the United Nations.

1.2       Cooperatives are defined as “autonomous associations of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise”. 

            As such, they represent a collective approach to the risk and reward associated with enterprise.

1.3       As a business model cooperatives are recognised as being resilient in challenging economic conditions.  The fundamental difference of co-operatives is that they have members, not shareholders that make decisions democratically. 

            Members of the cooperative are simultaneously owners of the enterprise and beneficiaries of the enterprise activity.

1.4       There are a number of types of cooperatives including:

-   Worker cooperatives – owned and run by the people who work there.

-   Consumer cooperatives - owned by its customers, employees can generally also become members.

-   Co-operative consortia – Co-operative consortia are formed when a group of businesses join together as a cooperative.  They remain independent businesses, but by working together gain a competitive advantage.

1.5       While cooperatives are widely found in many parts of Europe, there are limited examples of cooperatives in Northern Ireland, outside of a number of well-known agricultural cooperatives and, to some extent, credit unions.  In 2011 Cooperatives UK reported the existence of 239 cooperatives in Northern Ireland generating a total turnover of £0.9bn.  The number of cooperatives within the UK has been experiencing growth in the since 2008 with 2010 being particularly favourable with growth for the UK sector of 9.2%.

1.6       Cllr McVeigh has asked that support towards the promotion of cooperatives as a business model is further investigated as part of Belfast City Council support towards business. In this context, Belfast City Council has been approached to become a partner in an Interreg IVB proposal focused on the development of cooperatives.  The project is expected to last for 3 years and would cost in the region of €2m - €3m.

1.7       Members may be aware that the Interreg IVB programme supports transnational initiatives on a range of topics related to economic, environmental and social development.

1.8       Northern Ireland is located within the North West Europe (NWE) eligible area. 

2    Key Issues

2.1       Interreg funding is available at up to 75% of eligible costs within NWE projects.  This can include in-kind contributions such as staff time.

2.2       Projects require transnational partners, each of whom is willing to contribute to the learning within the project.  To date, Limerick County Council has agreed to take the lead in the project.  They have become interested in the concept of cooperatives following the move from the area of a number of foreign direct investment (FDI) schemes.  There is concern not only at the loss of jobs in the area but also at the loss of IP (intellectual property) and research and development activity, which was the property of the FDI company.  The council is keen to work with those formerly  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Mr. J. Walsh, Legal Services Manager, attended in connection with this item and Councillor McVeigh left the room whilst the matter was under discussion.)

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1          Relevant Background Information

1.1       Members will be aware that, in March last year, a request for funding was received from the Employment Services Board (ESB).  This request was for £15,000 interim funding as the organisation expected to receive funding under the proposed Social Investment Fund (SIF).  By June 2011, the funding still had not been released so ESB made a further request for an additional 6 month’s funding (£30,000), again in anticipation of SIF support. The total amount made available to the organisation over this 9 month period was £45,000.

1.2       In the period January-March 2012, the organisation received funding from a private sector sponsor.  However that funding has now come to an end and, in the absence of any additional funding, the organisation has again approached the Council with a request that we provide funding for a 9 month period, up to an amount of £58,500.

2          Key Issues

2.1       Members may be aware that the Employment Services Board (ESB) was established in 2001 as part of the West Belfast and Greater Shankill Task Forces.  Along with the Employers’ Forum (managed by Business in the Community (BITC)) and the Jobs Assist Centres (JACs)), it was intended that they would provide a support framework for developing targeted initiatives to help those furthest from the labour market to find employment.

2.2       ESB was funded by DETI and DEL initially to perform a range of functions but, since March 2011, it has had no core funding and has been seeking support from a range of sources.

2.3       ESB is a stakeholder organisation, bringing together a range of organisations including the Area Partnership Boards for West Belfast and Greater Shankill; Belfast Trust; Department for Employment and Learning (DEL); Social Security Agency; training organisations and the Employers’ Forum.  Belfast City Council is also represented at both officer and member level. 

2.4       In 2011, ESB was involved in a number of initiatives including:

·         Participation in the TQ Work group providing input and advice on maximising benefit to those furthest from the labour market

·         Monitoring work on the impact of Welfare Reform on the unemployed in west Belfast and Shankill areas

·         Support for further funding for development of the Health Employment Partnership.

2.5       Following a meeting with officers on 4 April, correspondence was received from Padraic White, Chair of the Employment Services Board on 5 April 2012 to request that the Council provide an additional £58,500 funding for the coming nine months, in light of ongoing delays with the Social Investment Fund (SIF). The meeting with officers focused on understanding how ESB might add value to Council activity as part of the Investment Programme.

2.6       A similar, separate meeting took place with the Employers’ Forum (EF) who had also submitted a funding request to Council to look at how  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 21st February, it had agreed that the Council’s Draft Masterplan would be subjected to further political scrutiny in order to align it with the Council’s Investment Programme for 2012/2015, and to take into account the priorities set out within the Northern Ireland Executive’s Programme for Government. In addition, it was agreed that consultation on the Masterplan would be carried out over two phases, with initial engagement being undertaken with the various departments within the Northern Ireland Executive, following which it would be issued for further consultation to allow the Council to gauge wider perceptions and enable additional modifications to be carried out.

The Director reported that the meetings with the various Departments of the Executive had commenced. The feedback from those meetings would, together with the comments and suggestions of Members, be incorporated within an updated document which would be considered by the Committee prior to the second stage of the consultation process being undertaken.  The Director suggested that the secondary consultation process could be carried out through a series of workshops which would address, in conjunction with a range of key stakeholders, the thematic issues within the Masterplan. It was proposed that such workshops would be facilitated by the independent consultants, viz., SLR Consulting, which had formulated the original draft document, at a cost not exceeding £15,000, provision for which had been included within the Department’s financial estimates.

After discussion, the Committee noted the information which had been provided and agreed also to the hiring of SLR Consultants for the undertaking of the workshops as outlined.

            The Committee noted the contents of a report which provided an update on the progress to date in the implementation of the 2012/2016 Renewing the Routes Programme.

            The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 27th June, it had received a presentation from representatives of the Department for Regional Development’s Road Service in respect of the four options which it had identified and issued for consultation regarding the upgrading of the York Street Interchange. At that meeting, the Committee had agreed that officers submit an interim response to the Department for Regional Development based on the comments made by Members regarding noise and air quality and the potential regeneration impacts of the upgrade work. The Director reported that, in order to assist the Council in its response, a request had been made to the Roads Service for additional information on its initial findings in respect of the potential air and noise impacts which would be associated with the scheme. However, there had been a delay in receiving that information which meant that the Committee would not be able to consider the Council’s draft formal response to the proposals until early May.

            After discussion, the Committee noted the information which had been provided and agreed that a special meeting to consider the Council’s response, to which all Members would be invited, would take place in early May on a date to be determined in conjunction with the Chairman.

            Pursuant to the minute of the meeting of 20th March, the Committee noted the contents of an update report which provided an overview of the Development Department’s applications for funding assistance under the terms of the Department for Regional Development’s Active Travel Projects. 

The Committee considered a draft Council response to The Big Lottery’s proposals to deliver a support programme during 2012/2015 which would address the needs of families and young persons. Such a programme would seek to address, inter alia, the issues of poverty, substance abuse, disability and homelessness and would be delivered through an open programme for which a sum of £15 million had been allocated. It was reported that the programme would support activities and develop, in particular, the life skills of families with children under the age of twelve.

Accordingly the Committee endorsed the undernoted response, subject to it being amended to reflect the following comments:

·         That the response would include a request that provision be made for the inclusion of programmes which would deliver suicide awareness training and address educational under-achievement;

·         That, in order to enhance the potential for communities to maximise the benefits arising from the programme, that community sector grants be aligned to the timescale for the programme, viz., over a period of three to five years; and

·         That the response should indicate that the scope of the programme should be widened to include all areas where acute need is identified and incorporate a request that the upper age for “Assistance for Children” be raised from 12 years to 14 years of age.

                  Council Response

Q1. Do you think the programme aim best reflects the needs of families in Northern Ireland?             Yes.

Q.2 Do you think the programme outcomes best reflect the needs of families in Northern Ireland?          No

Q.2b If no, what do you think the most important outcomes are for families in Northern Ireland?

Outcome 2 should be widened to read “opportunities to learn and develop together”. The use of the word “learn” on its own may lead people to think of formal educational issues and attainment only whereas the focus should be on the wider development of the family and young person. There may also be scope for including reference to the opportunities to engage with and better understand different communities (see our reference to interface areas for questions 3b).

Q.3 We are proposing that this programme should support families facing challenges such as physical and/or emotional abuse; poverty; substance/alcohol abuse; disability; homelessness; separation; social isolation and caring Do you agree with our definition of the challenges that a family may face?                        No

Q.3b If no, what other factors should be included?

The legacy of the Troubles and those living in or near interface areas should be highlighted as a particular challenge. There is much evidence to show that those living in interface areas are more likely to be in poverty, with lower levels of educational attainment etc. Social isolation is mentioned as a factor, and whilst this could perhaps fall under this heading, given the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, it is important to recognise the importance and impact of good relations on our society. Although there are many programmes designed to help in the transition from conflict, the impact on families  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

The Committee was reminded that, at its meeting on 20th March, it had agreed to provide financial support to a number of small-scale Local Area Regeneration Projects across the City. However, at the meeting, Members had requested that a report be submitted to a future meeting which would provide an overview of the criteria and processes which had been used in selecting the projects for consideration. It was requested also that the report would clarify the specific role and remit of the Department’s Strategic Neighbourhood Action Programme, together with an overview of the officers responsible for projects in each area of the City. 

A Member suggested that the report submitted did not address specifically the issues raised at the meeting on 20th March. He expressed concern at the lack of prior consultation which had been undertaken regarding the choice of projects and stated that the availability of funds for any community-based initiatives should have been be drawn to the Members’ attention at the earliest opportunity. The Member referred specifically to a project which he believed had met the criteria as set out within the report and which should have been considered for funding.

In response, the Director undertook to re-examine the specific circumstances pertaining to the project referred to and report back to the Member in this regard. He pointed out that, in future, the responsibility for the funding of such projects would fall within the remit of the Area Working Groups, which had been established by Council at its meeting on 1st April. 

The Committee noted the information provided and it was noted that further information would be provided in this regard.

The Committee considered the undernoted report:

“1        Relevant Background Information

1.1       Ainsworth Community Centre is located at 117 Mayo Street. Since the 1970s the centre has been locally managed by Ainsworth Community Association with the premises and land vested in Trustees by virtue of an Assignment of Lease dated 17 January 1975. The Association was funded under revenue and small grants by the Council for more than 25 years.

1.2       The Community and Leisure Sub Committee 29 November 2005 approved a Deed of Covenant and Charge by which the Council made a grant of £11,000 to the Association towards the expenditure to be incurred to complete the construction of a new community centre. Subsequent to this the Service continued to be in contact with the Association but indications were that the total funding package for the new build had yet to be achieved and  work not yet commenced.

1.3       In late spring 2008 a site visit carried out due to non return of revenue grant monitoring information 2007/8 indicated that the Centre had permanently closed. Subsequent contact with the Secretary of the Association confirmed the current condition of the building had required closure but the hope was that a rebuild programme would still be achieved. No further building related grant support was released and at some stage subsequent to this the Association ceased to exist.

1.4       In late 2011 the Service was invited to attend an interagency group established in the Ainsworth area. The group aim is to improve/ regenerate the area specifically in regard to local services and community safety.

            Group membership is made up of PSNI, NIHE, BRO, local residents and representatives of a number of community organisations within the Greater Shankill area. A current focus of the group is the need for the demolition of the existing centre, which is significantly deteriorated, and development in due course of a new facility.

            BRO have indicated that they will make funding available for a feasibility study but there is not yet a specific timescale or funding source for a new build programme. A survey has also been carried out in the area in regard to the needs of young people.

1.5       As a consequence of this initiative, a public meeting of local residents was held on 25 January 2012 which resulted in Ainsworth Community Association being reformed and constituted. This new Association will drive forward current plans for the area.

2          Key Issues

2.1       DSD have written to the Council 14 February 2012 confirming that they plan to vest the property with a view to its demolition and seeking the Council’s view in regard to the existence of the Deed and Covenant registered against the property. BRO have received a letter from the Trustees confirming consent to the community centre being vested and acceptance of the statutory evaluation of around £40k. This payment will be made to the Trustees as owners of the land and building.

2.2       Legal Services advice in regard to the Deed and Covenant indicates  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15.