5
The Committee received report ES/2367 and the Chair invited the Cabinet Member with responsibility for Communities, Culture, Leisure and Tourism to introduce her report. The Cabinet Member explained that the Community Partnership Board (CPB) and Community Partnerships (CPs) had been set up when Waveney and Suffolk Coastal Councils had merged to maintain contact and respond to communities' needs. The aim was for the CPs to be problem solving, interactive and solution focussed. She added that funds were available from the CPB and each of the eight CPs. She stated that it was a strength that the CPB and CPs could work together and were agile enough to be able to respond to local issues. Members noted that, whilst grants were available, the CPs greater role was to bring everyone together to work together because there was nothing like teamwork to overcome challenges. The Cabinet Member stressed that there were immense challenges ahead with Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and a tighter public purse, therefore, CPs needed to be strengthened and used to face key challenges and improve the lives of residents. She stated that the survey results had been very insightful so a survey would now be undertaken annually, with hard copies available at meetings to improve the response rate. She acknowledged that it took a while to understand how a CP worked and it could be confusing, resulting in some people not coming back, so she wanted to address that and tighten up the Terms of Reference with clear guidance on voting rights. The Cabinet Member concluded that she wanted to thank her Assistant Cabinet Member, Councillor Graham, and officers for their support and hard work.
At the Chair's invitation to speak, Councillor Graham explained that she was very involved in the cultural side of the portfolio as the Council's representative on the Arts Council, and she also supported the Youth Council.
The following responses were given to Committee Members' questions:
- It was challenging to get the message across as widely as we would like that CPs were having a positive impact and some people did wonder what they were going to achieve by attending. District and County Councillors needed to set a good example by attending and bring issues to CPs for discussion with an emphasis on finding solutions. The Communities Team were very hard working but getting the message out about their work was challenging so a Communications Task and Finish Group had been set up by the CPB to work on that.
- CP Chairs had attended a really good series of training sessions which included talking about how to address the question of meeting start times. It had been agreed that each CP needed to find the right time and venue for them because meetings needed to be more informal and welcoming and work for the local membership. The Aldeburgh and Leiston CP had a successful event to attract new members which other CPs might want to do too - Voluntary and Community Sector representatives and Town and Parish Councils had been invited to a forum with lunch provided and it had been very well attended with very positive responses so this would now take place annually. The timing of CP meetings was a problem, particularly in winter as people did not want to go out in the evening or they worked in the day. Some CPs had undertaken questionnaires about this and some now alternated meeting times between daytime and evenings. It was hard to please everyone and Councillors were in demand due to the number of meetings they attended in the evening, including Town and Parish Council meetings, but CP meeting times could be reviewed.
- Arguably some CPs were more successful than others but it depended on the definition of success and normally it was a combination of factors. A lot of investment had gone in to training the Chairs and Vice-Chairs because facilitating CPs was different to chairing formal Committee meetings as they needed to be more inclusive and workshop style. Not one CP had been good throughout which could be because of many reasons, such as a drop off in attendance or a change in Communities Officer but if everyone brought a sense of positivity and energy that would give the sense of driving CPs forward. There was also a need to be clear on what the meeting was. Some survey respondents said they liked the informality of CPs with everyone having the opportunity to speak.
- It was too early to anticipate if CPs would continue into the new Unitary Authority but the stronger the CPs were as we moved through the LGR process, the more likely they would be continued whatever size/shape the new Authority ended up as because there was a need to keep a close relationship with communities.
- Officers were trained in the ABCD model and more training was planned this year for the new Communities Officers as there was an opportunity to do more of this approach ensuring that we are enabling rather than doing to. Officers did try to look at solutions and what was already out there which could be built upon eg what was strong and the gaps. There were a lot of grants, and project activity was about working with local groups who were already doing work in the community and capturing their knowledge and expertise rather than the Council just parachuting in. Using the ABCD model more could be discussed as sustainability was important and would become even more so in the next few years.
- There were some comments in the survey about people not knowing about CPs but it was not about us getting kudos but was about what the CP enabled X group to do.
- In relation to sustainability and in particular the money v added value questions, it was likely that a lot of groups would continue whereas some were only interested in particular topics so did not want to sit on a CP itself, although hopefully those Groups would continue after LGR and elements of what we started would continue.
- It was very challenging in rural areas and trying to get the Parish Councils together in a perfect circle would be ideal. Unfortunately, we know some some villages feel they were put in the wrong CP but, originally, there had been a commitment that East Suffolk Wards would not be split across two CPs. There had also been a debate about whether to split Lowestoft as an urban area from the northern parishes. Discussions had also taken place about whether funding should be distributed differently rather than having an equal split across the eight CPs bearing in mind it could cost more to deliver services in rural areas, and whether to give a smaller allocation to all CPs and then have a bidding pot.
- Some Councillors had already used their Enabling Community Budgets to top up the funding of CP projects and the CPB and Aldeburgh and Leiston CP and Councillor ECBs had collectively allocated about £8K pa for a breakfast club for 40 children. An added bonus of that project was that pastoral staff could go to the breakfast and engage with the children. Discussions were being held on how this project could go further, perhaps by having an annual lunch.
- A digital asset map had been created for the Felixstowe CP which would be rolled out to other CP areas if successful.
- Some projects had not cost the CP any money but the CP had been used to develop the projects and enable different groups to work together.
- One of the main issues was that some Chairs felt that Communities Officers should do all the work but if the Chair had not done the work/research and injected passion into the CP then the energy was not there. There tended to be a theme in terms of the interests of the Chair which reflected how other people felt in the room but if it did reflect their passion that could help with the sense of energy and passion so CP Chairs needed to think about their key theme and work with communities and their Communities Officers on what they wanted to achieve.
- Some Councils set up Area Committees where residents turned up and moaned about granular issues but the CPs were set up as a forum so they could be innovative and allow attendees to be passionate about their area and actively involved in problem solving. Obviously there was a framework around CPs but each had the freedom to get the right people round the table and did not have to follow a set format.
- It was important to make sure everyone was clear on why they were present and able to contribute because some might not have the confidence. CPs should have a different dynamic from a Town/Parish Council meeting. CPs could also set up Task and Finish Groups to keep everything focussed and positive.
- Attendance at CP meetings was recorded and Councillors attending as often as they could was a good thing as Councillors knew what was going on in their areas and could put people in touch with someone who could help. It was taxpayers money so there was a need to be accountable and take responsibility for it.
The Chair invited Lesley Beevor, the Suffolk Association of Local Councils (SALC) representative to address the Committee and she explained that she was a member of SALC who represented Councils of all sizes across East Suffolk. She added that, whilst she wanted to concentrate on the attendance of Town and Parish Councils at CPs, her comments might also explain why other organisations did not attend.
Ms Beevor referred to the response to Q6 which stated that only 54% of Town and Parish Councils attended their CPs and stressed that 54% was a superb outcome when one considered that many Parishes were very small and some did not even have Parish Councils/Meetings. She added that SALC had undertaken a lot of work with its members about why they were not engaging with CPs. Members were informed that she viewed CPs positively and, as the SALC representative on the CPB, she saw great co-production of projects and partnership working. Unfortunately, however, many Town and Parish Councils struggled with resources and priorities eg many did not have full time staff and were dealing with many issues such as highways, pot holes, traffic calming and planning and NSIPS and, in dealing with those issues, they needed to be aware of and understand the concept of CPs. She suggested, therefore, that they needed to be brought into the CP and informed of the good work that was taking place. In relation to the involvement of Councillors, she acknowledged that some felt CPs were Councillor led and there was a perception they were just another Council meeting, especially if it was always chaired by an East Suffolk Councillor but she echoed earlier comments that, if the CP was positive and there was passion, these would draw people in. She pointed out that smaller Parish Councils without general power of competence could only spend money in their own parish so it was difficult for them and a totally different concept from CPs. In addition, generally Town and Parish Councils were non-political and the Voluntary and Community Sector was non-political but East Suffolk Council was political so that could be seen as a deterrent from the great work that CPs did. Ms Beevor stated that SALC provided new Parish Clerks with training and suggested it would be very easy to add a module containing information about the CPs into those training sessions if that was something that would be beneficial. She added that she thought educating Town and Parish Councils was a great benefit because they were used to working in silos and perhaps some of those nuances were why some did not attend. She suggested that it would be good for Town and Parish Councils to have the names of who they would be dealing with eg the Council's website did not have the name of the Communities Officer under each CP. She also pointed out that any interested community groups might look at the Council's website but the last newsletter was from December 2022. She stated that CP funding was a great sweetener but the application process was difficult and she suggested the form should be easier for the clerk/small community groups to complete. She stressed that good communication was vital and information needed to be kept up to date. She also suggested that information about the great projects CPs undertook should be made available so those Parishes that did not attend would know about them and also project outcomes should be made available to attendees. She concluded that education and communication were the most important things.
The Chair thanked Ms Beevor for her presentation and she responded to Members' questions as follows:
- Moving the meeting location around a CP area was good but the issue was whether the venues had the necessary equipment and broadband etc to be able to hold them there.
- All CPs had smaller villages and they might not feel that there was a subject matter they wanted to get involved with so did not attend or feel it was worthwhile but it was very difficult trying to find a subject that met everyone's needs.
- More Parishes might have received more funding if they understood the benefit of CPs and a lot of that was down to the application process because if a Clerk only had a 4/5 hour contract, a grant application would be a lower priority.
In response to Ms Beevor's comments regarding the application process, the Communities Manager stated that he agreed and a shorter outcome document would be available next week - one for the CPB, one to replace the existing CP outcome proposal document and a new, shorter form for grants under £1500.
The Chair thanked Ms Beevor again for attending and Committee Members were then invited to ask any final questions to the Cabinet Member, Assistant Cabinet Member and Officers who responded as follows:
- The current CP model was good but improvements could be made and the suggestions made by Ms Beevor and others had been very helpful eg a leaflet would now be devised to help people when they arrived at their first CP meeting. In light of funding and LGR, trying to do something radically different to the current model would be difficult. Instead, all the good work needed to be promoted more widely and having a dedicated Communications Officer for the Communities Team to do photos, social media etc would be really helpful because, whilst the Comms Team were very good, they were providing a service for the whole of the Council so it was difficult to get their time.
- East Suffolk would promote and support the roll out of CPs across the whole of Suffolk whichever Unitary model was agreed but their work needed to be promoted. Unitary Councils tended to be further away from the electorate and East Suffolk had a unique model which kept the Council in touch with communities, whereas neighbouring authorities did not have anything similar so there would be a need to have something to fill that gap. There was a lot of good evidence to support using the CP model moving forward and there was an opportunity to shape them and possibly even devolve powers to them eg have area based licensing committees.
- There had been an increase in enquiries over the last few months from other parts of the country about the CP model and it was really hoped that the strength of feeling shown in the positive survey comments about CPs could be built upon under LGR.
- It was hoped that closer links would be developed between CPs and the Youth Council but it needed to be borne in mind that they were very young people who were still at school with many demands on their time and the work they were doing at the Youth Council was already a big responsibility.
- The Communication Task and Finish Group's recommendations needed to be reviewed as they had been made prior to LGR being mentioned and might not be relevant any longer.
At the Chair's invitation, the Cabinet Member summed up that it was an evolving model and suggestions for improvement were always welcome eg it had already been decided to include many of those made as part of the CP survey undertaken as an input into this review. She added that she hoped CPs would thrive and be adopted by the Unitary Council. She concluded that she had no doubt in her mind about the value of CPs and the need for the connection with the communities. The Assistant Cabinet Member stated that when CPs worked well, community groups felt engaged and the model allowed them to interact with the Council so it was about enabling them to contribute. She added that CPs had been highlighted as a way to keep connected with residents as part of the Council's LGR submission. The Strategic Director referred to the KPI data available on the Council's website that showed all the projects the CPs had done over the years and their outcomes.
The Chair thanked everyone for their contribution and stated that, in his view, the Felixstowe Peninsula CP worked well, however, Felixstowe was a very urban area and was very dominant at the CP so he would like to see it spread around to the rural areas. He also felt that Waldringfield did not sit comfortably in this CP as it aligned more with Woodbridge but because it was part of a Felixstowe Ward it had been put in the Felixstowe CP. He questioned how rural areas could be supported more.
The Committee was invited to debate and make recommendations.
Councillor Plummer stated that the Beccles, Bungay and Halesworth CP had the same issue with the three medium sized market towns dominating. She agreed there was a problem about how to include the rural areas but was not sure how to address that balance.
Councillor Lynch suggested that the Cabinet Member should look at ways to provide funding for CPs beyond two years time into the new Unitary to provide ongoing support for communities which would be particularly crucial whilst the new Council settled down.
Councillor Ninnmey stated that he was the Waldringfield Ward Councillor and he echoed the Chair's comment as residents tended to travel to Woodbridge and possibly even Ipswich to go to high school and take part in sporting activities etc rather than Felixstowe. He also supported Ms Beevor's suggestion of including a CP module in the SALC Parish Clerks training. He concluded that communities needed to be strengthened from the bottom up so they should be encouraged to become involved in CPs but he acknowledged that some local groups might find it intimidating to join a CP.
Councillor Clery suggested that the Cabinet be recommended to include the CP model as part of the more detailed proposal for Unitary.
Councillor Jepson stated that the review had highlighted the developments and challenges of CPs but it was reassuring that the Cabinet Member and Officers were open to looking at everything to improve them. He added that it was a good model that just needed refining because it kept Councillors in communication with residents but it really needed to be promoted for when the Unitary was put in place.
Councillor Bennett suggested that a different approach should be tried or even a pilot could be undertaken where not all District and County Councillors were involved so that over half of CP attendees were not Councillors. This could change the perception that CPs were just another Council meeting and make them less formal and inviting. Those Councillors who were present would still be accountable for the taxpayers' money. The Cabinet Member agreed that the involvement of Councillors could be discussed again. Councillor Jepson stated that he recalled discussions when CPs were first introduced that they should be less formal than normal Council meetings and that the number of Councillors attending each CP would be pro-rated to make it less Council heavy but this seemed to have changed over time.
The Chair suggested that Cabinet be recommended to take up Ms Beevor's suggestions and Councillor Clery's suggestion about promoting CPs as the model of engagement for the new Unitary Authority. It was also suggested that the proposal for a dedicated communications resource for CPs be endorsed.
Councillor Gandy echoed the concern expressed that a Unitary Council could lose contact with residents. She also queried how Councillors were able to engage with communities if they did not attend their CPs. She pointed out that some Councillors were double/triple hatters but that would change with a Unitary, therefore, she suggested that rather than saying Councillors could not attend, more community groups should be encouraged to attend. She concluded that one of the biggest issues from the discussions seemed to be the size of a CP so perhaps the number of CPs should also be reviewed. The Chair concurred adding that picked up on his comment about Waldringfield being in the wrong CP. Councillor Bennett reiterated that some people felt Councillors should have more of a background role. Councillor Clery suggested it might help with the perception that CPs were Council led to have a community representative as Chair with a Councillor as the Vice-Chair. Councillor Lynch urged caution about about saying reduce the number of Councillors at CP and suggested that more community people needed to be encouraged to attend instead. The Chair suggested in light of the comments and concerns raised that Cabinet be recommended to review the attendance and role of Councillors at CPs.
Councillor Plummer stated that the community upwards approach of CPs was really strong and there was a need to ensure that going forward into the Unitary that it did not come downwards.
On the proposition of Councillor Lynch, seconded by Councillor Jepson it was
RESOLVED
1. That, whilst the Overview and Scrutiny Committee endorse the continued use of the Community Partnerships model to provide support to communities within East Suffolk, Cabinet be recommended to consider the following:
(a) Incorporate the suggestions made by the SALC representative as follows:
- Request SALC include Community Partnerships within their training for new Parish Clerks.
- Review the Council’s website to ensure the information on Community Partnerships was up to date, especially the Communities Officers’ details.
- Regularly review the grant application process to ensure it was user friendly for community groups.
- Make grant outcomes available to share learning.
(b) Review the involvement and role of Councillors within Community Partnerships, and encourage more community groups to get involved so that CPs were not perceived as being Councillor-led/heavy meetings.
(c) Review the number and geographical split of the Partnership areas, particularly those Parishes who might prefer to be in a different Community Partnership such as Waldringfield.
(d) Investigate the provision of a dedicated communications resource to support and promote Community Partnership activities.
2. That, as part of the Local Government Re-organisation discussions, Cabinet be recommended to stress the need for the new Unitary Authority covering East Suffolk to continue with the Community Partnerships model and to investigate the possibility of having a funding commitment beyond March 2027 and into the first few years of the new Unitary at least, to ensure that East Suffolk communities remained supported during the transition / transformation period.
The meeting adjourned at 8.22pm for a comfort break and reconvened at 8.32pm.