Venue: Anglia Room, The Committee Suite, Elizabeth House, Dereham
Contact: Sian Hall - Committee Services - Tel: 01362 656381
To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 8 February 2007.
The Minutes of the Meeting held on 8 February were confirmed as a correct record.
(a) Urgent Business – Creative Change Project (Minute No. 03/07 (a))
The project was going forward and would be using a wider referral system.
In Dereham the new Leisure Centre would be used to host the group’s activities.
Members were advised that the new Leisure Centre would, unofficially, open on the 20 April 2007.
(b) LSP Finances (Minute No. 11/07)
The Board were advised that the report regarding the LSP Co-ordinator had been delayed pending information regarding Second Homes Council Tax.
To receive apologies for absence.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor W. H. Nunn, Debbie Bartlett, John Battersby, Chief Inspector Tony Cherington, Brian Horner and David Ovenden.
To note whether the Chairman proposes to accept any items or urgent business.
Geoffrey Leigh raised concerns regarding the nomination for Parish Council elections as nomination papers had been sent equal to the number of seats for that Parish Council. It was felt that papers should be sent over and above the number of seats to encourage people to put themselves forward for election.
In response the Chief Executive noted the concerns and would relay them to the Elections Team. However, there were a large number of seats uncontested.
George Hayes pointed out that the Council had arranged evenings for prospective candidates for both the District and Parish Council elections to encourage local people to nominate themselves for elections.
Declaration of Interest
Members are asked at this stage to declare any interests they may have in any of the following items on the agenda.
Inspector Carl Edwards declared an interest in item 9a Safer Neighbourhood Team Vehicles and left the room whilst the item was discussed and voted upon.
Jan Godfrey declared an interest in item 9b Building Inclusive Rural Communities Project and left the room whilst the item was discussed and voted upon.
To receive the attached report from Kevin Ambrose, Ambrose Consultancy Ltd.
Kevin Ambrose of Ambrose Associates Consultancy Ltd was in attendance for this item.
The Consultant, Kevin Ambrose, gave a brief presentation on the progress made with the Social Inclusion Strategy.
Caroline Williams felt that there should be more input from the Business Community and Kevin Ambrose agreed to meet and discuss the way in which businesses could support the Social Inclusion Strategy.
Workshops had been organised and invitations sent to a multitude of organisations together with a press release.
The deadline for responses to the Social Inclusion Strategy was the 8 June 2007 with a draft Strategy being circulated to the LSP Board members in May and the final document being presented in July
With regard to the emergency services Kevin Ambrose agreed to meet with Stuart Horth to discuss social inclusion and access to those services.
There were five main groups with many different characteristics which shaped the strategy; these were:-
· Families at Risk (relationship problems, repeating behaviour etc)
· Young People (disaffected young and lower achievers)
· Older People and Long Term Disability (particularly in rural areas)
· Migrant Workers (attitudes of others and lack of ability to take opportunity)
· Travellers and Gypsies (again attitudes of others and lack of ability to take opportunity)
The main barriers were finance; decline in volunteers; uncertainty of finance for volunteer agencies particularly for long term planning; lack of co-ordination by partners and the need for leadership.
There was no single answer to the issue of Social Inclusion. Partners would need to improve their joint working with to ensure effective outcomes.
What came out of the Social Inclusion Strategy would give a steer on the actions needed to be undertaken and the need to grasp the leadership role and take actions forward.
To receive the attached report by David Spencer, Senior Planning Policy Officer, Breckland Council.
The issue of integration between Local Development Framework and Community Strategy was last considered by the MAST at its meeting on 21 May 2004. This pre-dated the enactment of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which gave the legal go ahead to prepare LDFs. Breckland was now well underway with the preparation of its Local Development Framework. Work had focussed on developing a strategy and policies. The latest consultation was called “Development Choices” and focuses on the scale of development for Breckland. The booklet that accompanies the consultation was available on-line at www.breckland.gov.uk and LSP Board members were encouraged to respond. The Strategy was due to be submitted at the end of this year and then work starts on site specifics in 2008.
The key issues were:
· Aligning content and evidence base:
The key spatial planning objectives for Breckland need to be fully aligned with the priorities identified in the SCS. A two-way process: Planners to share their evidence with LSPs; LSPs to make planners aware of the social, economic, environmental and community issues that need to be addressed in LDFs
· Ensuring the successful delivery of the infrastructure
Co-ordinating the delivery of appropriate social and community infrastructure as part of growth / regeneration. Raise awareness of implementation and delivery issues.
· Delivering LAA outcomes
Understanding planning contribution to achieving LAA outcomes: There a number of ways in which Planning can contribute to health & wellbeing; safer communities; social inclusion; economic prosperity and combating climate change.
The next step and what needed to be demonstrated were:
· Improved Collaboration
LDF needs to be integrated into the work of the LSP
Stronger corporate and political profile for SCS and LDF
· Sharing Evidence and Spatial Understanding
Collaborative approach to data collection and analysis
A shared understanding of the spatial implications of local issues.
· Joint Monitoring
A shared approach to monitoring
Collaboration on the LDF Annual Monitoring Report.
Monitoring developer contributions towards community infrastructure
· Interlinking Timescales & Co-ordinated Consultation
Both SCS and LDF need to actively engage stakeholders in their preparation.
The Board felt that there was confusion surrounding what constituted Sustainable Communities and what constituted the Sustainable Environment.
In response Andrea Long stated that sustainability should look at the economic, environment and community as a whole.
Caroline Williams felt that the business community could contribute to the Local Development Framework.
With regard to involving communities Geoffrey Leigh enquired whether the Parish Plans could be seen to feed into the overall picture.
It was agreed that the parish plans were a vital part of any decision which needed to have an evidence base. Parish Council’s could give a huge amount of information on the issues for the villages within their area.
Laura Apps-Green wished to point out that all the information contained within the village appraisals had been collated and were now in a database.
The LDF process needed to have a clear audit trail and demonstrate why and how decisions have been made.
To receive and note the attached report by Robert Walker, Local Strategy Partnership Officer.
At the LSP Board meeting on 8 February, the Breckland LSP agreed to refresh the Community Plan for Breckland during 2007. This task was being undertaken simultaneously by all the district Local Strategic Partnerships (LSPs) in Norfolk and the County Strategic Partnership.
Five representatives of the Breckland LSP had attended a Joint LSP Seminar held on 13March, which looked at developing a shared approach for Sustainable Community Strategies in Norfolk.
Rob Walker advised that the Norfolk County Strategic Partnership had made a number of recommendations following the joint seminar.
Firstly, that NCSP and LSP representatives take the agreed outcomes of the seminar to their Partnerships for discussion and agreement, as they develop their sustainable community strategies.
Second, that the LSP Network (county and district LSP Officers) brings together the priorities from district and county strategies to identify the emerging interlocking opportunities
The LSP Board agreed to the recommendations as presented.
The NCSP had also recommended that the NCSP hold a county coordination role and agree the priorities for the county.
The Breckland LSP felt that mapping issues and priorities at a county level could hide issues and mask ‘hot spots’ that were important within Breckland, e.g. educational attainment in Thetford. There was a need for a ‘bottom-up’ approach to setting priorities and identifying need that could then be aggregated to form an overarching strategy.
It was suggested that the LSP write to the Norfolk LSP requesting that a bottom-up approach as well as a top-down approach should be taken when assessing the needs of the different districts.
As the components contained within the report had been reduced to keep the report succinct the component information on sustainable communities would be circulated to all the Board members.
It was noted that Health had not been given a heading in its own right but had been covered by the other 8 headings as each impacted on the health agenda.
This would be an opportunity to ensure that the Sustainable Community Strategy was right for Breckland and aligned with the Local Development Framework and not just the Local Area Agreement.
The Chief Executive stated that the intention of the Government was to introduce a Corporate Area Assessment whereby all the partners would be judged on performance and this could effect how funding was accessed in the future. It was therefore imperative that the SCS was correct for Breckland.
The Board were advised that the draft SCS would be presented to them in July 2007.
To receive the attached report and consider any temporary funding request – Temp. Chief Inspector Carl Edwards, Norfolk Constabulary
Rob Walker informed members that two funding requests had been received which would be presented to the Board for discussion.
The Board were advised that there would be no further funding requests as the LSP funding would be reserved in order to fund key outcomes from the Sustainable Community Strategy.
Safer Neighbourhood Team Vehicles
Chief Inspector Carl Edwards presented the report which concerned an application for LSP funding for five vehicles to be provided on a three year full maintenance lease contract to enable the provision of partnership resources through the Home Office Safer Neighbourhoods initiative at an amended cost of £22,325 over a three year period.
Within Breckland there would be five Safer Neighbourhood Teams in operation from March 2007 covering the whole of the Breckland District Council Area.
To deliver ‘Safer Neighbourhoods’ within Breckland the police were committing two Inspectors, four sergeants, thirteen constables and thirty PCSOs. However, there was no funding for transportation to enable the officers to roll out the project effectively.
The priorities identified through the Community Action Groups are taken on by the Safer Neighbourhood Teams with the adoption of problem solving approach involving partners. Therefore the need to access the communities by all the involved agencies is crucial to success. The bid was to provide one vehicle in each of the five Neighbourhoods for use by any of the agencies or officers within that Safer Neighbourhood Team.
Inspector Carl Edwards stated that the vehicles would not be used as patrol vehicles and would be for the sole use of the Safer Neighbourhoods project.
With regard to livery the vehicles would be identified as LSP sponsored vehicles but would not look like police vehicles as there would then be the expectation by the public to respond to police calls.
Inspector Carl Edwards left the room at this point whilst the Board discussed the various funding options and made their decision.
Members discussed whether the project should be fully funded, part-funded or not funded.
To part-fund the scheme could create animosity between the different neighbourhoods as one would have access to a vehicle whilst another area would struggle to get the officers out to where they needed to be. To run the scheme for six months could create problems in relation to leasing the vehicles and getting the best value for money.
It was decided that the scheme should be fully funded to enable the project to work as effectively as possible. However, the funding would be provided together with a Service Level Agreement setting out the use of the vehicles and the monitoring process. The Board also requested that an up-date report on the usefulness of the vehicles be provided in six months.
(a) funding be approved for five vehicles for the sum of £22,325 together with a Service Level Agreement.
(b) an update report on the use of the vehicles be presented to the LSP Board in six months.
Building Inclusive Rural Communities Project
Jan Godfrey presented a report by the Wayland Partnership Development Trust, on behalf of the Building Inclusive Rural Communities Focus Group, which was requesting funding of £5,000 to support two elements of the ‘Wayland Together’ initiative during 2006/07.
The two projects were ESOL (Learning English as a foreign language) classes and the Wayland Together Youth Project.
ESOL classes would include two courses run over twelve weeks for a total of twelve students. The classes would cover a range of issues including: Home, Family, Hobbies, Community and Work and would last three hours. The funding requested for this project was £2,500.
The Wayland Together Youth Project was lead by Creative Arts East and if successful could be rolled out in other communities. The target group would be young people at risk of disengagement from learning through a mix of during and post school and summer activities. The core group of participants would be young people from Wayland Community High School selected by staff on the basis of agreed criteria. The funding requested for this project was £2,500.
Jan Godfrey left the room at this point whilst the Board discussed the various funding options and made their decision.
Members discussed whether the project should be fully funded, part-funded or not funded.
The Board agreed that many of the other area partnerships were investigating the possibility of introducing the ESOL project in their areas. It was suggested that funding for a Breckland wide ESOL project should be deferred pending the decision of the other area partnerships who might look to the LSP for funding. However, as the Wayland Partnership and been up and running and was ahead of the other partnerships in planning projects to enable their communities it was decided to fund the ESOL project.
As the Youth Project had already received funding for £4,000 from a source which had a rigorous funding process it was agreed to grant the £2,500 to fund the Summer Term element of the project.
It was understood that there would be a clear monitoring process for the projects and research undertaken in relation to other funding streams.
RESOLVED that the projects by funded for the sum of £2,500 for the ESOL project and £2,500 for the Wayland Together Youth Project.
To receive an update on the Play Forum and application to the Big Lottery Fund from Laura Apps-Green, Community Development Officer, Breckland Council.
The Play Forum was a cross-cutting group between a number of partners to bid for funding from the Big Lottery to improve children’s play within Breckland.
Following a number of workshops research as shown that young people want:
· Adventurous challenging play that involved some risk.
· Clean play areas with bins, somewhere to sit with dog restrictions.
· To feel safe from other people – design would be an important factor.
· Accessible play opportunities somewhere where they could reach by foot or bicycle.
There was an expectation of funding in the region of £238,000 although this was not guaranteed and would depend on the bids being accepted.
Interest had come from a variety of sources such as Town and Rural parishes, new and existing play areas, musical workshops, family fun days and sports projects.
With regard to the timetable for the project this was on target.
Concern was raised with regard to the risk element of play and the fear of being sued if a child was hurt whilst at play.
In response Laura Apps-Green stated that best practice needed to be encouraged and as long as the inspection mechanisms were in place, usually undertaken by RoSPA, there should be no problems.
As there were a range of different partners involved in the project there had been a larger understanding of the range of issues involved in children’s play and together with the bottom-up approach (involving children in workshops) this should provide a strong bid.
To receive and note the attached report from Rob Walker, Local Strategic Partnership Officer.
The second home council tax funding for next year would be in the region of £71,504,000 and this would be used to deliver the Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS).
Items for Future Agendas
To agree items for inclusion on the next or a future agenda.
It was noted that the next meeting in July would be the Annual General Meeting of the LSP Board and there would be a short review of the year’s achievements.
To note that the next meeting of the LSP Board will be held on 12 July 2007 at 2.00 pm in the Anglia Room, Elizabeth House, Breckland Council.
It was noted that the next meeting of the Local Strategic Partnership Board would be held on 12 July 2007 at 2.00 pm in the Anglia Room, Elizabeth House, Breckland Council.