Agenda item

To receive the report of the Head of Policy which provides the Inner South Community Committee with an update on the Best City Ambition refresh and to gather input from Elected Members and residents.

The report of the Head of Policy provided the Inner South Community Committee with an update on the Best City Ambition refresh and sought to gather input from Elected Members and residents.

The Head of Policy outlined the following information:

·  The ambition was the overall vision for the City, following on from the previous strategy named the Best Council Plan, which had consulted with Community Committees two years previous.

·  The previous feedback provided by Members had been reflected on and reviewed to be incorporated into the ambition, particularly focused on the comments regarding the importance of monitoring progress and to be more community based.

·   2021 census data had contributed to the refreshed plans and further comments were sought from Members to develop the first update of the document.

·  The Best City Ambition was the overall vision for the future of Leeds and was built upon the three pillars (health and wellbeing, inclusive growth and net zero) alongside promotion of the Team Leeds values.

·  Tackling poverty and inequality was a key strategic element of the ambition and despite the financial context, plans remained ambitious and optimistic.

·  The Best City Ambition had been adopted in February 2022 and had replaced the Best Council Plan. Since its adoption peer reviews had been conducted which had contributed to wide ownership of the ambition across Council Departments, partners and stakeholders.

·   Key focuses for the evolution of the ambition were to fill gaps in the current version, refine the three ambition statements, underpin the fifteen priorities and to develop the Team Leeds approach. The updated version was scheduled for submission to Full Council in February 2024.

·  The plan was ambitious and optimistic despite the Council facing immense budget constraints. The ambition was long term and although barriers to provision were noted, reductions for service delivery were not sought.

·  Models for assessing progress were outlined to be conducted through key performance indicators contained in the Health and Wellbeing Strategy, Inclusive Growth Strategy and Climate Action Plan.

·  Long term analysis will be provided via the Leeds social progress index (SPI) and periodic deeper city analysis will be provided every three years by the Joint Strategic Assessment (JSA).

·  As part of the SPI, an online tool was shown to Members which allowed breakdown of data to a Ward level, identifying a range of indicators. It was noted that this data will change over time and more will be added.

·  The following relevant data for the Inner South Wards was reported;

o  The total population for the Inner South was 83,000. This had grown by 1.2% (or 1,000 people) compared to Leeds average growth rate of 8.1%

o  Population density was higher than the Leeds average. If the city was divided into football pitch sized areas of land, the Inner South had 23 people living on each pitch, compared to 20 as the Leeds average. 

o  Home ownership was lower in Inner South, at 38% compared to the 58% average across Leeds. There were also more people in social rented housing – 28% compared to Leeds average of 20%.

o  In 2011, 20% of people in the Inner South took the bus, whilst 40% drove. Only 3% worked from home (WFH). In 2021, bus percentage had fallen to 12%, and those driving has decreased to 36%. WFH has risen to 28%.

o  Education - Level 4 Qualification Attainment Rate, The Leeds average was 34.7% and the Inner South Average was 30.3% and for No Formal Qualification Rate, the Leeds Average was 18.2% and the Inner South Average was 24.3%

o  Religion – The Christian population was 33K in 2021, down from 41K in 2011.  The Muslim population had increased by 3K since 2011, to a total of 10K. Like Leeds and National data, non-religious was the second most popular response.

o  Health outcomes - Good & Very Good Health, the Leeds average was 83% and the Inner South average was 82% and for Bad & Very Bad Health, the Leeds average was 5%, the Inner South average was 6%.

·  The SPI online tool was shown to Members, outlining how data was compared through a ranking system to inform long term measures and guide focus to areas most in need of resources.

 The Leeds Social Progress Index | Inclusive Growth Leeds

·  The data will track the progress of the ambition and indicators can be tracked year by year for each Ward.

Members discussions included the following points:

·  Further breakdown for health figures for the SPI, with comparative data will be useful to compare health outcomes and opportunities and provide perspective and context.

·  The online tool was an initial version, with a more updated and richer version to be created through gathering new data and conducting a JSA every three years.

·  Although it was desirable to be able to break data down to a street level to identify pockets of deprivation within a Ward, which may require more attention and resources, it was not yet achievable, however, it may be available in time.

·  In response to a question regarding what was to be actioned from the data, it was outlined that the tool was not previously available, was democratised evidence, can be used to track decision and resources allocation and informed a wide scope of Council strategies and the Team Leeds approach.

·  There were two parts to the plan’s ambitions, to provide data and engage with communities as data needs context and open conversation to help people who are struggling.

·  Social reality needed to be applied to the data to better understand its dynamics.

·  Ranking Wards from 1 to 33 may not be best practise for data that had marginal differences and the online tool needed a narrative element and also an option to compare a Ward’s data against an average for the City.

·  It was outlined that Mosaic data was not proposed to be incorporated to the tool, but the JSA will be based on Council, National Statistics and Census lifestyle data to allow depth and create super output area data.

·  In response to a query relating the reliability of the data to tackle emerging issues it was noted that it was to be updated annually and sample data and public responses will be taken into account.

·  To allow consistency, all data was subject to assurance criteria, the methodology for each index which informs the overall score, was agreed to be sent to Members after the meeting.

·  It was confirmed that the data on shelter was only gathered from Council housing. Data on vacant private housing was challenging to gather but a better reflection on this was needed whilst also being reliable.

·  The Gross Value Added (GVA) data for Middleton Park was concerning and it was noted that the areas experiencing the highest deprivation correlated with low GVA.

 RESOLVED – That to the contents of the report and presentation, be noted, along with the comments and recommendations as made by Members as part of the discussion.