Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision:  

To consider the proposed process for the second priority-setting round, to receive an update on the progress being made on projects funded from developer contributions and to note related issues being addressed.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Public Places:

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

       i.          Note the progress being made to deliver developer contribution funded projects, including strategic priorities from the first round of devolved decision-making;

     ii.          Note the proposed process for the second priority-setting round of developer contributions devolved decision-making;

   iii.          Note the updated analysis of developer contributions devolved to each area committee fund and the city-wide fund;

   iv.          Note the issues relating to the use of developer contributions that were currently being addressed.

 

Reason for the Decision:

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

The Committee received a report from the Urban Growth Project Manager, which highlighted that:

 

·       developer contributions-funded projects are moving forwards (six new and improved local facilities have been completed recently);

·       the proposed process for the second round of priority-setting promotes local choice (not limited to projects capable of short-term delivery), whilst making sure that it is manageable and achievable and as fair and consistent as possible to all areas;

·       there is a continuing commitment and energy to strengthen the Council’s approach to delivering developer contribution-funded projects - the focus is on project delivery.

 

Members of the committee made the following comments in response to the report, for officers to take into account in finalising the process.

 

       i.          The approach to the first round of priority-setting under developer contributions  devolved decision-making had been driven by the need to spend the money quickly rather than the projects most needed.

     ii.          The current process was prescriptive and made long-term, large scale projects harder to achieve.

   iii.          Priority-setting based on needs and wishes identified by area consultation workshops had not been the most helpful approach without objective statistics and evidence of need.

   iv.          Articulate groups had better access to funding whilst harder-to-reach groups might miss out. However, members were wary that authorising officers to make specific arrangements to consult such groups could set up a parallel process. The engagement process needed to be simple and to involve members.

    v.          The emphasis needed to be on delivery.

   vi.          The presentation of the process was thought to be overly complicated and could benefit from simple/more concise communication.

 vii.          A flow chart to explain the process was agreed to be a good idea.

viii.          Residents needed to be kept informed regarding the status of projects that were prioritised in the first round and opportunities for taking forward other project ideas that had not yet been prioritised.

   ix.          More flexibility was needed at an area level in applying the proposed corporate process locally.

    x.          Concerns were raised about the funding of projects across area committee boundaries prior to devolved decision-making. Proposals to address issues relating to the Newtown Community Development Capital Grants Programme were welcomed.

   xi.          A query was raised whether recent difficulties relating to the Parker’s Piece public art project would have any particular financial implications. The officer clarified that the developer contribution, which had to be spent by next summer, had been reallocated to another project and therefore addressed. Developer contributions with expiry dates are monitored closely to avoid developer contributions having to be returned.

 

The Committee resolved to amend recommendation 2.2 of the report to read as follow (additional wording in bold and underlined):

 

2.2     To endorse  note the proposed process for the second priority-setting round of developer contributions devolved decision-making (see Section 5 of the Officer’s report)

 

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable.