Meeting documents

To consider a report by the Overview and Scrutiny Manager (attached)

The Committee considered a report by the Overview and Scrutiny Manager which set out the terms of a Councillor Call for Action initiated by the Chairman, Councillor Lawn in respect of how the Council supported Ingham Play Park Committee (IPPC) to deliver the new play park in Sleights.  Councillor Lawn explained that although this project had been an undoubted success, and could not have been realised without the support of the Borough Council, the IPPC had encountered many frustrations when dealing with the Council.  Today’s review therefore set out to identify what these frustrations were, if there were any weaknesses in the way the Council supported community groups to deliver such projects, and what lessons the Council could learn from Ingham Play Park in order to improve the way it supported community groups.  Ms Alyson Elder of IPPC then addressed the Committee.  Ms Elder explained that in 2006, with help from Eskdaleside-cum-Ugglebarnby Parish Council, a group was set up with the intention of redeveloping the derelict and disused play ground off Ingham Close.  By April 2007 the group was formally constituted as Ingham Play Park Committee.  This group consisted entirely of Sleights residents.  Throughout, two members of the Parish Council attended all their meetings.  The Parish Council paid for room hire at the local institute allowing them to meet as a group and to arrange meetings with outside bodies, and to obtain advice and direction from other organisations and funding bodies.  To underline this support and add credibility, the Parish Council provided an initial grant of £2000.  Due to funding body requirements (Lottery and Leader) the IPPC was required to finalise schemes for:

(i) the lease of the site,

(ii) maintenance of the equipment and also the green areas of the site,

(iii) regular safety inspections (with the Parish Council to meet the costs of these)

(iv) insurance 

(v) an Accountable Body to handle the grants (Scarborough Borough Council).

A formal agreement with SBC (as landowners) was negotiated to enable the group to prepare and submit bids for funding.  By the end of 2009 it was agreed that SBC would appoint a project manager to work with the group.  The IPPC was successful in its bids to the Lottery and Leader – the Lottery being a 2 stage process over 18 months which supported the successful Leader bid.  Over £135K of funding was obtained to enable the creation of an impressive play park at Ingham Close.  Ms Elder added that to achieve this project they needed to negotiate their way through a labyrinth of hoops.  Although the project was complete, she commented that there were questions they needed to ask the management of SBC, in order (i) to improve the IPPC’s understanding of why parts of the administrative system of SBC made it difficult to achieve their aim and (ii) to enable the IPPC to support and pave the way for other community groups experiencing difficulties in their dealings with the systems of SBC.  The Head of Legal and Support Services, Ian Anderson then addressed the Committee in reply.  A summary of his response had been circulated to the Committee.  Mr Anderson identified three issues in particular which arose from the call for action:

(a) the importance of communicating effectively how the Council’s structures and budget operated so that community groups contemplating such a project understood the arrangements that would follow from the outset.  Much of this information could already be found within the Council’s Partnership Guide on the Council website.  However, Mr Anderson suggested perhaps a suite of web pages that were bespoke to projects such as this, which explained the Council and grant providers’ approaches and how these needed to be addressed.  Mr Anderson made this suggestion for several reasons.  The first was the onerous requirements of grant providers dispensing public monies including public law procurement principles, and that ordinarily local community groups required an Accountable Body to act as guarantor of the project, with all the responsibilities this position entailed.  He also referred to the substantial revenue implications of such a project especially the long term maintenance and repair of the equipment and associated grounds.  Accordingly, the IPPC had looked to SBC to help the community deliver the project, act as Accountable Body and meet revenue costs arising from the implementation of the project.  There were two difficulties with this request: (i) as revenue budgets had been cut, SBC had structured its overall budget to build capacity through capitalising salaries, instead of using revenue budgets.  Funding to pay for the involvement of staff therefore had to be found through project budgets (ii) the revenue budget of the Council has been reduced year on year in real terms for the last five years and this trend was set to continue.  Any proposal to extend the scope of the work undertaken through increased maintenance responsibilities therefore amounted to potential growth in the revenue budget unless it could be accommodated by efficiencies in the operation of the service.

(b) There appeared to be some frustration that the Council did not appoint an officer to deal with this project until the point there was agreement upon how such time would be paid for.  This arose in part from the capitalisation of salaries.  But he was also concerned at the disconnect between community expectations that the costs of support be met by the Council and the growing pressure on the Council’s revenue budgets.  An initial point of contact to support the information to be placed on the website could well assist in this regard.  This point of contact may logically be through Regeneration Services.  The purpose of the contact would be simply to support the information on the website and help the community explore how they may take the matter forward.  Agreement to take any project forward and commit Council funds to it needed financial provision either through the project itself, or through a decision to commit funds through Cabinet.  Recently the opportunity to submit capital bids had been extended to community representatives.  Those projects that were supported should ordinarily be identified through this process.

(c) The community group had established new structures to manage the play park with consequent costs.  Mr Anderson understood that a company limited by guarantee had been formed. However, in practice the major part of the responsibilities within the lease had been returned to the Borough Council through the Services Agreement.  Yet within the Borough all areas outside of Scarborough Town were parished.  As a local authority the parish council was subject to the same procurement regime as the public funders of the project. There were existing mechanisms such as the Parish Model Area Agreement that provided for the provision of funding to parish councils to fund responsibilities and furthermore the parish existed as a constituted body that could take on responsibilities and raise revenue through precepts, or set up trusts to manage facilities.   Mr Anderson suggested that parish councils could play a larger role in delivering and managing such projects.

Ms Elder responded by suggesting a meeting with SBC management first to help resolve specific issues around the Council support for the project, and then to identify the broader lessons to be learned.  Members congratulated Ms Elder on the success of Ingham Play Park.  They welcomed this call for action and the issues Mr Anderson had highlighted.  They agreed with him that clearer, more accessible information for community groups was required with an initial point of contact to discuss groups’ proposals.  They felt that such an initial point of contact could have helped the IPPC to progress their project.  Members also highlighted the pivotal role of parish councils to progress community projects.  The Chairman, a member of Eskdaleside-cum-Ugglebarnby Parish Council, commented that the parish council had been involved from the start of the project, but for VAT reasons, they did not have the capacity to deliver it, nor the expertise.  There were therefore issues around the capacity of parish councils that needed to be examined.  Mr Anderson further suggested that perhaps seed funding in the Council’s budget could be identified to assist communities and parish councils to develop capital bids.  The renovation of Pannett Park in Whitby was cited as a model of how the Borough Council and a parish/town council could work in partnership to deliver a capital project.  The Chairman thanked all the speakers for their contributions, and as per Ms Elder’s request, suggested that Mr Anderson, Regeneration Services, Environmental Services, and himself meet with Ms Elder and Ms Ward to discuss their concerns and the ideas raised at today’s meeting, with a view to officers submitting a report to the next meeting of the Committee on 23 November with some concrete proposals for Members to consider.

RESOLVED that:

(i)                 the report be received; and

(ii)               as outlined above, a further report be submitted to the next meeting on 23 November 2011.