Agenda item

To consider the report of the South East Area Manager recommending to Area Committee that the Well Being budget for 2010/11 be divided evenly between the 4 wards once the committed expenditure is accounted for and referring to one project that needs to be considered from the Well Being Budget 2009/10.

(Executive Function)

RESOLVED –

(a)  That the contents of the report and appendices be noted.

(b)  That the division of the budget for 2010/11 be agreed as stated in the report, including funding of the ‘community payback’ probation scheme at £15,000.

 (c)  That a decision on the request from Bronze Tanning Studio on Manston Approach for the Area Committee to provide 50% of the funding for security shutters be deferred in order for further legal advice to be sought.

The South East Area Manager submitted a report advising that the Well Being budget for 2010/11 was £220,727 and recommending that the budget be divided evenly between the four Wards once the committed expenditure had been accounted for.  The report also referred to one project that needed to be considered from the Well Being Budget 2009/10.

Martin Hackett, Area Management Officer, presented the report.  He highlighted that if Members accepted the allocation of the budget as outlined in the report, it would mean that each Ward would have £8,000 remaining to spend on services to young people, £8,000 on community engagement and £8,000 for each tasking team.  It was suggested that Members might prefer to cut back on funding for environmental projects and choose not to fund the ‘community payback’ scheme in 2010/11.  This would create a saving of £15,000 that could be allocated against other projects during the course of the year. 

The Area Management Officer referred Members to Appendix 2 of the report which detailed all the work completed by the ‘community payback’ scheme during 2009/10 and advised that the 10,200 hours of work carried out equated to £80,300, if based on the national minimum wage.

Members discussed this proposal but decided that the ‘community payback’ scheme was working well, and as it represented good value for money, that the Area Committee should continue to fund this scheme.

With regard to the allocation of the rest of the budget, concern was raised by a Member with regard to the future security of the gardening scheme, as it was managed by Swarcliffe Good Neighbours, a voluntary organisation which was itself vulnerable to changes in its funding.

The Area Management Officer then advised Members with regard to the request for funding from the Bronze Tanning Studio on Manston Approach for security shutters to the premises.  He reminded Members that a decision had been deferred from the previous meeting in order to find out whether the owner would contribute towards the project costs.  Members were also reminded that the Environment and Neighbourhoods Finance Section had advised not to support this project due to the reasons as set out in the report and Members were provided with a note with comments from Environment and Neighbourhoods Finance which officers summarised and which stated the following:

‘In respect of the eligibility the guidance is contained in Andy Hodson’s report “Constitutional Considerations relating to Area Committees”, which was a report received at all Area Committees and which sets out how the executive functions of Area Committees may be exercised.  One of the appendices of this report refers to the management and purpose of the Wellbeing budget and describes it as such:

“Decisions taken in relation to the utilisation of Well-Being budgets within the framework of the Council’s Constitution and having regard to the Community Strategy in accordance with Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000.  Specifically Area Committees will seek to:

Promote and improve the economic, social and environmental well-being of the Committee’s area, including enhancing service delivery outcomes within their area.”

Therefore this application needs to be judged as to whether it is consistent with this requirement and if it is then it can be submitted to the Area Committee for support.’

Keith Lander, Acting Area Manager, re-emphasised that approving this funding would set a dangerous precedent and potentially benefit an individual.  He read out previous guidance that had been usedfor applicants and the Area Committee, and re-iterated that the Well-being funds were largelyfor the benefit of voluntary organisations, the wider community and to a lesser extent for shared space with businesses, but not for the benefit of one individual or business.  In relation to business support, the Acting Area Manager also referred  to how Council monies had been used within the Town & District Centre Regeneration Initiative.

Members were advised that the owner was prepared to fund 50% of the cost of the shutters at £1,950.  Members then discussed their reasons in favour and against supporting this application and decided that it would be best to seek further legal advice before taking a final decision on whether to support this application.

In the meanwhile, the Acting Area Manager advised that he would explore if alternative security measures could be taken from within tasking to support this parade of shops.

RESOLVED –

(a)  That the contents of the report and appendices be noted.

(b)  That the division of the budget for 2010/11 be agreed as stated in the report, including funding of the ‘community payback’ probation scheme at £15,000.

(c)  That a decision on the request from the Bronze Tanning Studio on  Manston Approach for the Area Committee to provide 50% of the funding for security shutters be deferred in order for further legal advice to be sought.

(NB: Councillor W Hyde declared a personal interest during the consideration of this item as Chair of Cross Gates and District Good Neighbours Scheme.)