Agenda item

            The Committee considered the undernoted report:

 

“1.0     Relevant Background Information 

 

1.1       Members will be aware that the newly established Local Investment Fund (LIF) has been developed to support the delivery of key regeneration projects in neighbourhoods and also as a means for Members to connect with local communities, in preparation for their formal role in community planning under RPA.

 

1.2       SP&R Committee agreed on 23rd March, there will be a minimum level of investment through the LIF of no less than £15,000 and support for any one project is unlikely to exceed £250,000 to ensure a spread of investment across the city.  At present, North, South, East and West have been allocated £1,127,500 each, with a proportionate amount of £490,000 for the Shankill area. 

 

1.3       Members have stressed the need to test robustly the feasibility, deliverability, affordability and sustainability of any investments made under LIF, as well as their capacity to contribute to ‘quality of life’ outcomes as described in the Council’s corporate objectives.

 

2.0       Key Issues

 

2.1       Area Working Groups (AWGs) meetings

 

            Each AWG has now met twice to be briefed on the capital development/implementation process and the prioritisation approach, as well as having preliminary discussion on the long-list of potential project proposals. 

 

            Arising from this first phase of engagement, Members in the AWGs have already begun to highlight the issues and tensions in seeking to balance community expectations for swift delivery, with the good governance required by SP&R in terms of legal vires (powers) financial accountability and the underpinning principles articulated in the Investment Programme. 

           

            The issues of vires and accountability are important elements and the role of the Strategic Policy and Resources (SP&R) Committee is critical in ensuring that an appropriate framework is in place to guide the work of the AWGs and ensure that the overarching principles of the Investment Programme are complied with. 

           

            As Members will be aware, the Local Investment Fund is to be administered on a rolling basis and there will be a number of phases of consideration of projects throughout the life of the fund.  This is largely due to the length of time which can be involved in bringing such a project to completion; the fact that potential projects will already have progressed to different stages, with some much closer to delivery than others; and the fact that external factors may make expeditious delivery more pressing for some projects than others.  The AWGs are presently involved in consideration of projects at the first phase.  Further applications may be received in later phases and some first phase applications which are not prioritised in this phase may have a greater chance of success at a later stage when they have been more fully explored or have progressed further.

 

2.2       Preparation for Community Planning

 

            The AWGs have enthusiastically embraced the outward-facing nature of the Local Investment Fund, as a mechanism to proactively and directly engaging with their local areas, partly in preparation for the community planning powers anticipated under the reform of local government.  This is in line with the interim terms of reference for the AWGs, as agreed by SP&R, to act as community advocates to identify local priorities, support effective ‘place-shaping’ and to facilitate community engagement and communications activities with a wide range of groups regarding investment in local areas.

 

            Similar to elected representatives on local area committees in England, such as Sunderland City Council, the role of the Members on the AWGs is to identify key priorities for their areas, in the context of supporting the delivery of the Council’s Corporate Plan and Investment Programme at a local level and ensure maximum impact through utilising its own resources.

 

            As the work of the AWGs continues to develop the scope of the activity will evolve as further issues emerge. As part of this process regular update reports will be brought to SP&R for their consideration and determination, particularly in the context of the reform of local government.  Whilst allowing for an iterative development approach, it is however imperative that recommendations emerging from the AWGs are considered in a transparent, robust and consistent fashion, in line with the Council’s legal, financial/audit and equality obligations. 

 

2.3       Local Investment Fund long-list – Phase 1

 

            As described in a separate SP&R report (entitled: Update on Investment Programme Consultation: 22 June 12), each of the 5 community launches across the city were well-attended by a broad range of locally-based groups who expressed interest in the Local Investment Fund.  At these events, it was stressed that the list in the consultation document was not a definitive list and further proposals were welcome.  Consequent to this, and reinforced by the ongoing engagement of Members with constituent groups, over 200 project proposals have already been forwarded to the Area Working Groups (AWGs), for this first phase of the Local Investment Fund (LIF). 

 

            Two AWGs have recommended that there is a cut-off date for this phase at 22 June 2012.  It is suggested that SP&R might consider applying this across all 5 AWGs, given the significant officer resource required to obtain further information on the existing long-list of project proposals. 

 

            As noted above, the introduction of a cut-off at this stage does not mean that further proposals for local areas cannot be introduced by individual AWG members; there will be further phases of prioritisation for the existing resource allocations and the potential for a continued programme, dependent on additional funds and capacity being made available by SP&R.   

 

            The first full round of proposal clarifications and prioritisation will take place over the summer, with recommendations from AWGs being presented to SP&R in August.  A number of proposals which need further concept development will be supported under the proposed Feasibility Fund.

 

            It is proposed that the next phase of LIF project prioritisation, dependent on funds remaining, will occur in October/November 2012.  AWGs will facilitate a further round of community engagement in advance of that.  This will also allow the Council to consider the potential for support and alignment with any proposals for implementation arising from the OFMDFM Social Investment Fund (SIF) plans.  Further information on SIF is contained at paragraph 2.14 of this report.

 

2.4       Council-owned property and/or assets

 

            In the guidance issued to Members, it was stated that the LIF was to “only fund capital projects which are not owned by the Council”.  In general terms, the view has been taken to date that projects which fall within this category are likely to be funded through the Council’s own capital development scheme and should therefore be sifted out as ineligible for funding through the LIF.  However, in terms of the proposals on the current long-list, a number are either located on Council property or in/attached to a Council-owned building, including amongst others:

 

-                  Cairn Lodge Boxing Club at Hammer

-                  Suffolk Playing Pitch (managed through a Facilities Management Agreement)

-                  Carrick Hill Community Centre (own part of the site but not building; land leased for 99 years)

-                  Midland Boxing Club (leased to 3rd party for 25 years)

-                  Malachians/Grove United (located on Council-owned land)

 

            There are a number of other proposals which do not specify the exact location of the proposed capital investment and may be located on Council property e.g. Lower Oldpark/Clifton Park Avenue community facilities; and various ‘meanwhile’ projects.

 

            In addition, there also are a number of projects which are located on Department for Social Development-owned land which are likely to transfer to the Council as part of the reform of local government. 

            Many of these proposals will potentially deliver significant community benefit and it may therefore be useful to consider:

 

1.     A proposal is eligible in respect of an asset which is subject to a lease of reasonable duration from Council to a 3rd party.

 

2.     A proposal is eligible in relation to a structure or building of a temporary nature which is not Council-owned but located on Council land.  The presence of the structure/building owned by the 3rd party on Council land may be governed by a Licence Agreement, Facility Management Agreement or similar.

 

3.     A proposal is ineligible if it is located in or on an asset which is Council-owned and operated.  In accountancy terms these assets will appear on the Council’s balance sheet and therefore would need to be funded from the Capital programme or City Investment Fund.

 

4.     A proposal is ineligible where the terms of the lease (or similar) are such that the Council still retain a large degree of control, autonomy or responsibility in relation to either the asset itself (maintenance etc.) or the services provided therein (for example, community services programmes).  Again funding from the capital programme or City Investment fund would be the appropriate route for such proposals.

 

5.     A proposal is ineligible where it directly impacts a leasing arrangement already in place with a 3rd party, who is not the proposal sponsor.

 

            It is recommended therefore that those proposals which involve Council land or property assets remain on the long-list for the moment to seek further information from proposal sponsors, before going forward for prioritisation.

 

            Officers will undertake further work to determine the appropriate performance management/claw back arrangements for inclusion in the form of legal agreement that will need to be drawn up between the Council and the proposer (for example,. funding agreement/Lease/schedule of operation), to ensure that the Council is able to both sustain and monitor the ongoing community benefit of its investment.

 

2.5       Prioritisation matrix

 

            At its meeting on 25 April, SP&R Committee considered a draft version of the prioritisation matrix and project proposal form.  It was agreed that this would be discussed at the AWGs and further tested and refined, in advance of any decisions to invest.

 

            An amended prioritisation matrix has been included in the appendix utilising a red/amber/green (RAG) system, for Members’ consideration.  This has been developed from the information to be gathered by officers using the project proposal form and will form the basis for determining the assessment of the project.  The weighting previously agreed by SP&R has been retained, namely:

 

1.         Affordability 10%

2          Sustainability 35%

3.         Deliverability 20%

4.         Feasibility 35%

 

            It is also suggested that the scoring matrix is used as an informative to guide AWGs consideration and recommendations, rather than as a strict measure.  In other words, use of the scoring matrix will provide Members with a helpful tool by which they can compare projects on a like-for-like and consistent basis and establish a general view of how projects should be prioritised – but without prejudice to their discretion to depart from the strict order of priority which the scoring matrix might produce where particular circumstances are considered sufficient to justify this.

 

            The RAG rating will also allow Members to identify the areas for improvement and discuss potential collaborative measures to strengthen and enhance proposals which they consider to be local area priorities but which may need further development to move forward.

 

            Once agreed, it is proposed that the prioritisation matrix will be made available to organisations seeking funding, so that they are aware of the matters which will be considered by Council and be better able to provide the information necessary to allow a fully informed consideration of their project to be undertaken.

 

2.6       Guidance notes and proposal form

 

            Each project will require a project proposal form to be completed to ensure that there is a consistent level of information upon which Members can make informed recommendations.  It should be noted that the project proposal form is not an application form and is in most, if not all cases, likely to be followed up by further investigation and enquiry on the part of the Council.  In the spirit of the principles of the Investment Programme, the proposal form will be completed by a Council officer with the proposal sponsor at a meeting.  This is intended as a support to those groups with less experience in capital or less well-developed proposals.

 

            In light of the various issues highlighted above and the ongoing engagement, the guidance notes will be clarified and updated.  The proposal form will not be available on the website as it is important that a Council officer meets with the group to complete this; however, the guidance notes will give a full indication of the information that will be required for that meeting to complete the proposal form. 

 

2.7       Capital funding regulations

 

            The local government public accounting rules governing capital expenditure are complex and each AWG has been briefed on the Code of Practice for Local Authority Accounting, as part of the Local Government Accounts and Audit Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006.

 

            The Local Investment Fund is a capital funding stream and the type of expenditure which can be financed through that stream is determined by the Code.  The Code defines capital expenditure as “money spent on the acquisition of a tangible asset or expenditure which adds to, and not merely maintains, the value of an existing asset, provided that it yields benefits for more than one year”.  In addition, the Code does not list every item of eligible expenditure but included examples that highlight the complexity such as:-

 

-                The replacement of single-glazed windows was revenue expenditure but replacement with double glazing was capital;

-                Painting a building was revenue but painting of a new building to bring it into service could be counted as capital; and

-                Additional rooms to increase the service potential of the property could be counted as capital.

 

            It is therefore not possible to provide a definitive list of eligible capital expenditure.  Each project proposal would be tested on a case-by-case basis against the Code of Practice of Local Authority Accounting to determine whether it could be considered as capital expenditure and therefore eligible to be funded.

 

2.8       Non-eligible projects and groups

 

            Arising from the capital expenditure rules, a number of non-eligible projects have been identified and highlighted to AWGs.  However, further work is required in order to provide confirmation to SP&R that the preliminary assessment is correct.  In addition, legal advice is being sought on the eligibility of certain organisations to seek funding from the LIF, for example, traders’ associations, credit unions and housing associations. 

 

            A final list of non-eligible projects/organisations will be presented to the AWGs at their meetings over the summer, to be sifted out at that stage. 

 

2.9       Time-critical match-funding opportunities in Phase 1

 

            Amongst the long-list of projects, there are a limited number which have secured offers of match-funding which are time-critical.  It is important to note that failure to take a decision on these projects at this stage could put the projects in significant jeopardy and risk losing the offers of funding from other funders.  This is not true of the vast majority of LIF projects, particularly those at early concept stage.

 

            Given their time-critical status, these particular projects have been treated as priorities; officers have met with the relevant organisations and completed the project proposal forms.  The projects have already been independently assessed, as they are seeking funding from other public bodies, namely Sports NI and NI Tourist Board.  Scored against the proposed matrix in the appendix, these proposals have more than met the standards required by SP&R.

 

            Consequently, in order to deliver the benefits of these projects and secure the match funding, the relevant AWGs have asked that SP&R approve these projects for investment, in principle.  Although this would be in advance of the final agreements on the matrix, it would be consistent with the developing and responsive nature of the fund and Members’ concerns that external funding (which offers potential for additional value for money in terms of the LIF funding proposed) should not be lost through an inability to apply the prioritisation matrix flexibly.  All AWGs would be required thereafter to ensure that projects are assessed against the revised prioritisation matrix, appended to this report.

 

            In addition there are also smaller scale projects that are sufficiently developed to enable appropriate assessment in accordance with the matrix as outlined in paragraph 2.5 above.

 

            The relevant projects which have been assessed and forwarded to SP&R for approval are:

 

 

            The RAG scoring matrix for these 7 projects is included in Appendix 2.  SP&R Committee is being asked to agree in principle to support these project proposals, which are spread across the 5 AWG areas.

            Two of these projects are on Council land i.e. Cairn Lodge Boxing Club at the Hammer and Malachians /Grove United at Shore Road and SP&R approval will also be required to agree the terms of any leasing arrangements in respect of both of these. 

 

2.10     Member development workshops

 

            Members have expressed the need for continued capacity-building on the complex governance and place-shaping issues that the Local Investment Fund raises.  In the coming months, a series of workshops have been proposed on the following themes:

 

1.     Understanding the local area: its assets, issues and existing investments

2.     Place-shaping for real change – examining practice and case studies from elsewhere

3.     Vision for change – priority outcomes and community engagement

 

            This series will enable Members to make further progress with prioritisation, consider the desired outcomes and reflect on the process to date to ensure the most effective approach.

 

            One AWG has suggested that as part of the process of prioritisation, that proposals are grouped together to identify synergies, complementarity and overlap in terms of the potential outcomes.  This work will be carried out in parallel with the next stage of the individual project proposal prioritisation and fed into the process for consideration by the AWGs and the workshop process.

 

            It is suggested that to support this work, Jon Huish is engaged as an independent facilitator to the process, supporting Members to engage effectively with the organisational development issues, such as community engagement capacity, which will continue to emerge.  This is based on his previous work with the Council and his relationship with Members, and therefore would be a proprietary basis.  This will also dovetail with the work being undertaken as part of the Members Development Charter and the personal development planning for each Member.

 

2.11     Next stages of community engagement

 

            As there is no traditional ‘open call’ for proposals e.g. newspaper advert, sustained community engagement is critical to the success of the Local Investment Fund.  This also means that there is an obligation on Members to ensure that their local area engagement is widespread and inclusive.

 

            The revised guidance will be circulated to the AWGs as well as placed on the Council’s website to allow further access to interested groups.  Further information on the next phase of the LIF prioritisation will also be placed on the website and, as per the initial phase of community engagement, groups will be asked to register their interest for notification.  It will also be highlighted that the elected Members play a central role in the proposal identification process and groups will be directed to contact their local elected representatives.

 

            Community engagement has been extremely successful to date (as evidenced by the high number of proposals received), and it is planned to enhance this further in the following respects:

 

-        Further public communications activity e.g. website information;

-        Engagement in line with the overall communications plan supporting the Investment Programme; and

-        Full proposals on the next stages of community engagement will be brought to Members for consideration at the Area Working Group workshops in August, where Members can explore best practice in ensuring the maximum appropriate level of involvement by stakeholders in the roll-out of the Local Investment Fund.

 

            Officers will continue to work with AWGs to plan the next stages of community engagement. 

 

2.12     Alignment with other corporate strategies and outcomes

 

            There is a real opportunity to enhance the stated objectives of those existing strategies and deliver improved outcomes for local people, particularly in terms of the Playing Pitches Strategy and the Alley-gates Strategy.  In early discussions with the AWGs, a number of issues related to the prioritisation matrices have emerged.  Over the summer months, officers will work to align these corporate strategies and bring further recommendations to the relevant Committees.  

 

 

 

 

2.13     Alignment with other external strategies

 

            As agreed by Committee, officers have continued to work with the relevant government officials in relation to potential capital programmes, notably the Belfast Regeneration Office and OFMDFM Social Investment Fund (see below for SIF update).  A meeting is also planned with representatives from the Health and Social Care Board to discuss potential collaborations.

 

            A list of potential capital projects will be shared with the AWGs at future meetings.

 

2.14     Social Investment Fund

 

            The Social Investment Fund, administered by OFMDFM, is being delivered in partnership with communities across nine social investment zones: the 4 in the Greater Belfast area are based on Northern Ireland Assembly constituencies.

            It has now been agreed by OFMDFM that each investment zone will have a steering group with a maximum of 14 members representing the business, political, statutory and voluntary and community sectors. Their role will be to develop and manage area-based plans for each of the nine social investment zones.  The membership will be:

 

-                Political x 4 representatives (Political parties, in proportion determined by the D’Hondt method, will be invited to nominate MLAs or councillors to the steering groups.)

-                Statutory x 4 representatives (senior level and have the authority to make decisions. It is intended that the Council will be invited to nominate an officer for each group)

-                Voluntary and Community x 4 representatives (Nominations will be sought from the voluntary and community sector by 29 June 2012.)

-                Business x 2 representatives (Key business organisations will be invited to nominate representatives.)

 

            It is anticipated that OFMDFM Ministers will write to the Council to seek officer nominations over the summer period.  It is recommended that the Committee authorises the Chief Executive to nominate a Director to sit on each steering group.  Regular update reports will be provided to SP&R Committee.  Political representation is to be determined by Political Parties.

 

2.15     City Investment Fund

 

            Members will note that the concentration to date has been on the Local Investment Fund.  A parallel development process for the City Investment Fund is being undertaken and a report will be brought to SP&R in September/October. 

 

3.0       Equality Implications

 

            As part of the prioritisation process, the proposals being forwarded to SP&R will be screened for equality implications.  The overall programme of LIF investments will also be screened at regular intervals to ensure that the Council is fulfilling its obligations as part of the Equality Scheme, as well as ensuring that it is in line with the Investment Programme’s underpinning principles related to good relations and balanced investment.

 

4.0       Resource Implications

 

            Human: None at present

 

            Financial: £790,852 from the total allocation for the Local Investment Fund of £5million

 

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

 

5.0       Recommendations

 

            The Committee is asked to:

 

1.     Agree the amended prioritisation matrix as circulated;

 

2.     Agree the proposals forwarded from the AWGs as set out above 2.9, subject to future reports being brought back to SP&R Committee for approval in relation to the terms of any necessary leasing arrangements;

 

3.     Commission Jon Huish to support the organisational/Member development elements of the Area Working Groups; and

 

4.     Authorise the Chief Executive to nominate a Director to sit on each steering group for the implementation of the Social Investment Fund in Belfast

 

6.0       Abbreviations

 

            AWGs – Area Working Groups

            DSD – Department for Social Development

            LIF – Local Investment Fund

            OFMDFM – Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister

            RAG – red/amber/green”

 

            The Committee adopted the recommendations.