Agenda item

To receive and consider the report of the Head of Locality Partnerships which provides an update on the budget position for the Wellbeing Fund, Youth Activity Fund and Capital Budget for 2024/25. Financial decisions are taken to the Community Committee meetings to ensure transparency and that financial regulations are met.

The Head of Locality Partnerships submitted a report to update the Community Committee on the budget position for the Wellbeing Fund, Youth Activity Fund and Capital Budget for 2024/25.

The Localities Officer highlighted the following information:

• Points 7 and 8, on page 46 of the report, clarified that the Outer North East Community Committee received no Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding and that these funds were administrated by Parish and Town Council’s across the Outer North East.
• Point 14, on page 46 of the report, requested Members to review the previously approved Community Committee minimum conditions.

• The Wellbeing Budget balance for the Committee was contained in table 1, with the total balance being £85,088.26 and the Ward split as, Alwoodley £24,161.04, Harewood £25,964.97 and Wetherby £34,962.25.
• The YAF budget balance for the Committee was contained in table 2, with the total balance being £45,078.43 and the Ward split as, Alwoodley £17,125.42, Harewood £15,436.75 and Wetherby £12,526.26.
• West Yorkshire Police (WYP) had submitted three separate funding bids for consideration by the Committee, two were relevant to all three Wards, and one was specific to Harewood.
• The Capital balance for the Committee was contained in table 3, with the total balance being £26,886.05 and the Ward split as Alwoodley £3,878.05, Harewood £12,521.00 and Wetherby £10,487.00.
• Recommendation A was corrected for the minimum conditions to be agreed for the 2024/25 municipal year and not 2023/24, as referenced in the report.

The Committee discussed the following:

• Legal advice on the minimum conditions had previously been received at the beginning of the 2023/24 municipal year and had outlined that they were appropriate and sound for the Community Committee’s process and determination for delegated decision and also corresponded with processes for other Community Committees.
• In response to a query related to amendments to the minimum conditions, the Localities Officer agreed to seek advice on other possible arrangement models.
• As the organisation that had applied for Wellbeing funds for the Wetherby Fly Tipping project was Leeds City Council, clarification of the bid was provided. Although the use of Wellbeing funds for this work was not ideal, it was considered necessary in order for a significant local event, ran at Wetherby Sport Association, to take place as travellers had occupied the surrounding private land. As it was not Council owned land, clean up costs were incurred and as the event was a major fund-raising event for the Wetherby Sport Association, Wetherby Ward Members wanted the event to happen uninhibited.
• Alwoodley Ward Members outlined that they were not supporting the two funding bid applications, that were relevant to all three Wards, submitted by WYP. Although supportive of working collaboratively with WYP, multiple funding bids had been approved over the past several years and it was felt that the applications were a surcharge for traffic and burglary Police work that were considered core, statuary Police duties.
• The three applications from WYP were for significant funds and, if approved, would require around 30% of the Committee’s entire Wellbeing budget for the 2024/25 municipal year. Wellbeing funding was considered to be applied to community projects and youth activities and not for supplementary funds to statutory agencies.
• Available funds to Community Committee’s had decreased and as national funding for Policing had seen significant increases, it felt inappropriate to agree the WYP applications without further scrutiny and seeking alternative funding streams.
• As all three WYP applications were considered to affect the Harewood Ward most significantly, Harewood Ward Members outlined they would be supporting the the applications for their portion only. However, it was noted that a review of the WYP funding process was supported, including scrutiny of outcomes and impact against cost.
• It was outlined that the Burglary Prevention application was used to pay for statutory overtime costs, improving investigations at peak times and any underspends were to be reimbursed back to the Community Committee Wellbeing budget.
• It was noted that recent Alwoodley PACT meetings with WYP had been less effective than in previous times, and it was hoped they would improve and lead to better outcomes.
• It was proposed that the Burglary Prevention application be deferred in order for more information to be gathered related to sustainability plans for future funding and proposed operations.
• The Localities Officer agreed to review any amount for previous underspends reimbursed to the Alwoodley Wellbeing budget for approved WYP Burglary Prevention funding applications.
• The previous agreements for funding bids with WYP had felt more like additions to a base service provision and funding agreements had been matched by WYP, however, it was felt that the applications were moving away from this model and had become a funding stream as opposed to a working partnership.
• The Crime Prevention application for Harewood, related to property marking equipment to help address the persistent issue of burglary from rural farms and a request was expected for this technology to be rolled out across the whole Neighbourhood Policing Team (NPT) area.
• Harewood Ward Members noted they were content to defer the Burglary Prevention application, support their portion of funding for the Road Policing application and agree to fund the Crime Prevention application.
• If the Burglary Prevention application was to be deferred and either done via delegated decision, once clarity on the issues had been sought, or referred back to the next Community Committee meeting, the timeframe delay over summer was considered to not hold significant impact.
• As Community Committee funds were decreasing, it was noted that, all funding bids should be subject to more stringent scrutiny, sustainability plans and attempts to access other funding streams. Parish Council CIL funding was suggested as a funding stream that could support community project funding.
• To resolve issues regarding funding WYP applications, it was noted to require input at a strategic level. It was requested that a meeting should be planned with the Deputy Mayor for Policing to discuss funding breakdown.
• It was confirmed that funding from one Ward’s contribution could be used to cover a third of the amount proposed by a funding bid applicable to all three Wards.
• One third of the Road Policing application was agreed by the Harewood Ward Members, the remaining two thirds would be deferred for further information. The Burglary Prevention application was deferred in its entirety.
• Members thanked the Localities Officer and Bardsey Tennis Club for their work on the project for Bardsey Tennis Court Renovation, ensuring the application was legally sound and yielded the best results for the community.
• The Localities Officer was thanked for her work on the Moor Allerton Holiday Play Scheme and Provision of External Training Facilities projects, revising the applications to be supported as a good use of funding.

Projects set out in the report were discussed, and agreed as follows:

 RESOLVED –

1.)  That the Wellbeing & Youth Activities Fund (YAF) applications be determined as set out above.

2.)  To note;

a. Minimum condition arrangements for 2024/25

b. Details of the Wellbeing Budget position (Table 1)

c. Wellbeing proposals for consideration and approval (paragraph 21)

d. Details of the Youth Activities Fund (YAF) position (Table 2)

e. Youth Activity Funding proposals for consideration and approval (paragraph 28)

f. Details of the Capital Budget (Table 3)