3
The Scrutiny Committee received the written report submitted by the responsible Cabinet Member for Communities, Leisure and Tourism, Councillor Smith, in response to the Committee's agreed remit.
The Chairman invited questions.
Councillor Deacon referred to one of the responses in appendix B to the report and the which had referred to work underway to boost Town and Parish Council and Voluntary and Community Sector membership respectively, he asked how this would be achieved. The Head of Communities said this was more about ensuring a good range of representatives on the Community Partnerships, including youth and voluntary bodies, to facilitate different voices. Councillor Deacon welcomed the ambition to widen the range of voices but said he had found the reference to the reduced participation of Councillors to be offensive. The Leader of the Council said the comments had been provided by one of the Chairman of one of the Community Partnerships as part of the Committee's consultation; he wished to assure the Committee that there was no intention or wish to reduce the involvement of Councillors in any of the Partnerships rather ESC Councillors would be core members of heir respective Partnership. Councillor Smith said the aim was to retain Councillor involvement but use it to encourage other participants.
Councillor Beavan referred to question one of appendix A to the report and said that district Councillors bore the responsibility to ensure public monies were well spent and, therefore, he considered that Councillors should be informed on spend in their wards; he asked if such a notification could be considered. Councillor Smith said she would consider this suggestion and make it happen if at all possible.
Councillor Topping said that the Suffolk Association of Local Councils (SALC) had indicated that some small parishes did not wish to engage with the Community Partnerships because they had felt dominated by the Town and District Councils and asked if this was being addressed to engage and reassure parishes that their participation was of equal importance. The Head of Communities reiterated that the Council worked closely with SALC which had worked to encourage every parish to participate, in addition, information had been shared on the projects the Partnerships had supported to indicate the possible benefits of participation. Councillor Smith also referred to the recently introduced rural proofing toolkit, developed in conjunction with Community Action Suffolk, and which aimed to increase engagement over the next twelve months or so. Councillor Cloke said that within the Community Partnership she chaired the three market towns had multiple representatives which did mean that some representatives from small parishes felt 'outnumbered'. Councillor Smith added that the continued success of the Partnerships and their positive impacts would encourage participation.
Councillor Hedgley said he had, initially, had reservations about the Community Partnerships but that these had largely dissipated; he added that his constituents did not speak to him about isolation or mental health, but did raise traffic and road safety issues which, he suggested, sometimes mattered greatly to small rural villages. Councillor Coulam added that transport in towns also needed to be considered. Councillor Smith replied that the Community Partnership Board would be looking at this as a priority for 2021/22 and that a Transport Delivery Plan was in development with £80,000 already allocated for projects. It was also possible for Partnerships to change their priorities if they so chose. The Chairman asked if a Partnership could return to one of its original priorities if this had altered as a result of Covid. The Head of Communities said that if emerging needs indicated this would be helpful then a return to a previous priority was acceptable.
Councillor Gooch thanked the Cabinet Member and Head of Communities for the report and for the hard work which had gone into establishing the Community Partnerships so successfully. She asked how much monitoring was done of good practice in other local authorities and for some additional details on the planned peer review. The Head of Communities said the peer review was scheduled to be undertaken over three days in mid-October; it would focus on Community Partnerships as a new, innovative and successful initiative. The Review would be undertaken by the Leader of another local authority, a CEO of another local authority - both with experience of community-related initiatives - have officer support and include someone from the Local Government Association who would prepare the resulting report. The review would provide an external and independent assessment. The Leader of the Council said that officers and the Council's leadership team looked outside of the organisation for good practice examples.
Councillor Gooch asked if anything in the replies submitted by the Chairs of the Partnerships had been a surprise. Councillor Smith replied that she intended to discuss the replies with the Chairs and to ask them to elaborate further. The Head of Communities wished to reassure the Committee that extensive research had been undertaken before the establishment of the Community Partnerships and, she added, the Chairs replies had been insightful and clearly proud of the achievements to date. However, there were some specifics in the replies which needed to be discussed a little further.
Councillor Bird asked about perceptions of the current funding allocation to all Partnerships of the same amount, no matter their make-up. The Leader of the Council said this had been raised and revisited previously. He stressed the need to make sure the allocation was fair and equitable; he outlined the costs of a project undertaken in an urban areas and the logistical challenges and costs of doing the same in a rural location. The Head of Communities said it was important not to look at the allocation in isolation but within the context of other initiatives underway and funding available, for example, in Lowestoft, Leiston and Felixstowe.
Councillor Green asked if there was a perception that some groups, with older volunteers, might struggle to seek funding and, if so, was there something the Council could do to assist them to identify funding opportunities and to complete applications. The Head of Communities said the Council was working with Community Action Suffolk on a number of projects and that the Community Partnership Board had created the 'bounce back' fund but, sometimes, in the instance Councillor Green referred to, it was more about having additional volunteers than about funding.
Councillor Topping asked how Community Partnerships would meet in the future; she suggested that a more inclusive remote approach would perhaps be more welcoming to smaller parishes but, equally, exclusive if they did not have the correct technology. Councillor Smith said this depended on the Partnership and that whilst she encouraged face to face meetings the difficulties of doing so were recognised.
In response to a question from Councillor Byatt, the Head of Communities said Partnerships were encouraged to review their priorities annually to decide if they needed to continue or if other matters should take greater priority in changing circumstances. The Leader of the Council said the identification, monitoring, review and changing of priorities was in the power of the Partnerships and added that sometimes it was not a question of funding, but joint working, that offered the solution.
Councillor Smith thanked the Committee for its questions and for an enjoyable debate. She said she had noted the questions and comments which had been very useful.
Councillor Lynch said the Committee had been negative in its review and instead should have been praising the Partnerships and the Communities team for their work and to have pride in their achievements. The Chairman stated that the review had not been negative, but the Committee's remit was to examine constructively and to ask probing questions. He agreed that achievements were praiseworthy but the Committee was required to examine matters thoroughly. Councillor Deacon and Councillor Gooch agreed with the Chairman and also referred to the need for the Committee to fulfil its role and to add value where possible.
RESOLVED
That, having received the written report and questioned its contents, the Committee agreed to formally thank the Cabinet Member, all Officers within the Communities team and the Chairs of the eight Community Partnerships for their excellent work and achievements to date