LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP – EXECUTIVE BOARD

Minutes

DATE30 March 2006

VENUECommittee Room 2, Guildhall

PRESENTBoard Members:David Atkinson, Chief Executive - City of York Council

Ron Cooke – Co-opted Partner

Ken Dixon – Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Mike Galloway, Principal – York College

Cllr. Stephen Galloway – City of York Council (Chair)

Pat Hill, - PCT Patient Forum

Rachel Johns – Director of Public Health - SYPCT

Keith Jones - Dean of York

Tim Madgwick, Chief Superintendent – North Yorkshire Police

Colin Stroud, Chief Executive – York Council for Vol. Service

Jonathan Tyler, Chair – York Environment Forum

Cllr. Andrew Waller – City of York Council

In Attendance:Dave Caulfield, Head of City Development - CYC

Ian Cunningham, Data Analyst, Safer York Partnership

Secretariat:Colin Mockler, Head of Performance Improvement, CYC

Denise Simms, Senior Partnership Support Officer, CYC

APOLOGIES:

Brian Cantor, Vice Chancellor - University of York

Len Cruddas, Chief Executive – Chamber of Commerce

Cllr. David Merrett – City of York Council

Bob Wood, Chair – Safer York Partnership

1WELCOME AND APOLOGIES

Apologies were received from Brian Cantor, Len Cruddas, Dave Merrett and Bob Wood.

It was also reported that the Chair had accepted Liz Page’s resignation from the Board following the last full Partnership meeting in December. Partners passed on their thanks to Liz for the immense contribution that she had made to the work of the Partnership since joining the Board in November 2002. Board Members also wished her well in her new role as Regional Managing Director of a magazine publishing company.

2MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 28 SEPTEMBER

Minutes of the meeting held on 23 November were agreed.

MATTERS ARISING

Sub-Regional Investment Plan (SRIP) Review 2006 - Partners were informed that a Strategic Economic Assessment was underway, the results of which would be available shortly. From this assessment, strategic priorities for intervention would be identified and these would be taken up by ‘Priority Groups’. The process of defining investment priorities, incorporating consultation with LSPs, would take until December 2006.

Colin Stroud commented on a recent discussion that had taken place at the York and North Yorkshire Social Inclusion Forum regarding how inclusion could be built into the SRIP process. The group had encountered difficulty in collecting data against certain inclusion measures, for example, number of people unable to work and in receipt of benefits. Data of this type would be vital to make a strong business bid for inclusion projects for future SRIP consideration.

Draft Regional Spatial Strategy – Partners received a copy of the Council’s response to the Draft RSS, which was being considered by the Council’s Executive on 4 April. Comments from Board Members on the report included:

  • Concern regarding the Investment for Growth Policy for the Leeds City Region (Para 17 of the Executive report) was echoed;
  • Police merger to create a Yorkshire Force added significance in respect of Leeds;
  • Movement between Leeds and York was an issue;
  • The main issues to be conveyed (i.e. proposals that weren’t welcomed) should be summarised on the front page;
  • Failure to recognise York’s position as a Science City should be deplored;
  • Strong language regarding issues of environmental sustainability was welcomed, more attention should be given to this absolutely fundamental issue;
  • Climate change policy should be emphasised earlier in the document, the region should be advised to stand up amidst rather weak national guidance;

In addition Cllr. Merrett submitted the following comments regarding the Executive paper:

“The Labour Group were concerned at the major reduction in the house building rate that was implied by RSS housing allocations. This represented a quarter reduction of build rates over the last 5/6 years. The proposed total allocation was substantially less than the affordable housing need on its own that was identified by the last housing needs survey.

Wage / salary rates remained low against the national average, whereas house prices and private sector rent were now above average. In addition, a new report was likely to suggest that three York postcode areas would be in the top ten for largest house price increases nationally.

The Group thought it imperative that higher housing allocations should be pursued in order to take the heat out of the situation and to provide more affordable homes”.

Dave Caulfield explained that there was a requirement to build 670 houses per year until 2016, when this figure would be slightly reduced in order to protect the setting. Housing completions currently stood at approximately 900 per year and, due to changes in the planning system, 50% would be affordable housing. In order to meet actual housing need through the planning system current build rates would have to be doubled to 1,800 houses per year. It was questioned whether York could sustain that level of development and that solutions outside the planning system should be investigated in order to meet housing need.

Additional comments from Partners included:

  • Attendees of the Inclusive York Forum represented groups who were adversely affected by the lack of affordable housing in the city and they often raised it as an issue at meetings;
  • The RSS should enable the city to do what it wants to do and housing would be a key test of that;
  • Housing and commercial land allocations were key for York.

ODPM Consultation on the future of LSPs -

Partners were informed that a partnership response was not submitted to ODPM in reply to their consultation on the future of Local Strategic Partnerships (launched January 2006). However, it was felt that the partnership should respond to the implications of the consultation for York. In particular to take into account development of the Local Area Agreement and the impact this would have on Without Walls’ governance and performance management arrangements.

Partners’ comments included:

  • Statutory bodies would be the main delivery agencies;
  • Strong representation had been made by the Voluntary Sector regionally to deliver on LAAs;
  • Useful discussions had taken place between the Environment Forum and LA21 Steering Group and hopefully the group’s conclusions would inform review of the LSP in due course;

Action – It was agreed that informal soundings would take place with Partners during April / May regarding structural review options and a discussion paper would be presented at the next Board meeting on 23 May.

3LDF CORE STRATEGY ISSUES AND OPTIONS

Partners were updated on progress in developing the Local Development Framework and were asked how Without Walls would prefer to contribute to consultation on the LDF Core Strategy, which would start in late April for a minimum of six weeks. Dave Caulfield explained that the LDF would set out the overall spatial strategy and would set policies for planning and land use in York. This first stage of consultation was to gain feedback on whether the issues and options highlighted were the right ones. The next stage of the consultation would be on the council’s intended approach or ‘preferred options’. In the initial consultation the team hoped to engage with the wider city through the ‘Your City’ publication, database contacts and at a key stakeholder workshop. Dave made the suggestion that Partners may prefer a separate session to discuss the key issues raised by the issues and options document.

Board Members comments included:

  • A special meeting, on the lines of the session held for the York@Large partnership could be held, however, would this be held after the formal consultation?
  • A discreet meeting at the end of the formal consultation could feed in the responses of York residents;
  • Views of the themed sub-groups could inform the process;
  • Safer and stronger communities was omitted from the bullet point list of sections highlighted as included in the document;
  • Inclusive York Forum members had been invited to submit their views on the Statement of Community Involvement.

Action – It was agreed that an LSP event would be held towards the end of the formal consultation on the issues and options paper.

4SMG 26 JAN 2006 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Partners had received minutes after the last Strategic Monitoring Group meeting, which took place on 26 January 2006. Colin Mockler summarised the most significant issues from the mid-year update meeting as:

  • Progress made against certain indicators including a 20% reduction in violent crime over the Christmas period and improvement on GCSE achievements;
  • The Credit Union had received FSA authorisation and would launch in May;
  • Partners were encouraged to take a broader view of the causes / impact of homelessness, in particular the possible contribution to re-offending on release from prison;
  • Initial preparations were being made for development of the LAA, including assessment of potential priority outcomes / indicators for inclusion in the agreement;
  • Data sharing across the partnership was key to enable more informed / joined up decisions to be made. For example, preventing crime / ASB using a partnership case conference approach organised around prolific offenders or NEET data.

Partners comments included:

  • Was performance data tested for statistical significance? Partners should focus on issues that were significant as opposed to small changes at face value on a quarterly basis;
  • Board members should look at trends annually and over several years as this would show more, notwithstanding that some government funding depended on the detail of some quarterly figures;
  • Reports / data were scrutinised by theme sub-groups in their role as deliverers. The level of detail that SMG focussed on should be more strategic and in keeping with overall Community Strategy/LAA delivery.
  • As major employers in the city, Partners were encouraged to support the Credit Union within their organisations;
  • One route for promoting the Credit Union could be through church communities;
  • It was questioned why York sustained a higher crime rate than other similar cities. A small group of young people were committing crime that LSP Partners should address together and bring about change;
  • The LSPs role should be to identify fundamental, hard to crack issues, rather than to concentrate on detail;
  • There was a role for the Board in building stronger bilateral relationships, e.g. learning and crime, and to develop joint activities;
  • Learning from others experience, e.g. Canterbury housing situation, was key;
  • The role for this group was to identify common themes and look longer term and at prevention;
  • People have different aspirations from place to place and this would impact on crime;
  • There were anomalies in York, with excellence on an academic level, however in other areas there were clearly problems;
  • York Action on Young Homeless had reported that there were now considerable groups of young people who had opted not to take the opportunities available to them;
  • NEET breaks (Numbers of young people not in education, employment or training) for York were highest in the country, however York had high levels of employment of young people;
  • The Partnership Board should agree, for example, three key priorities and use the expertise of the SMG to facilitate these conversations;
  • A shortlist of priorities should be identified that, if addressed, would have a significant impact on York. Focus was needed so that time and money could be invested in making a difference;
  • In view of the Environment Forum critique, there would be support for identifying 3 / 4 key themes;
  • The Government’s approach through LAAs would lead to disaggregation, rather than focus on key themes.

Action – It was agreed that the future SMG agenda needed to be more thoughtful in terms of focus so that Partners could deal with focussed issues in more depth.

DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAA:

5SAFER AND STRONGER COMMUNITIES AGREEMENT

Board Members had received a copy of the updated Safer and Stronger Communities Fund (SSCF) agreement and were asked to consider the lessons learned by the project team during the refresh process and, in addition, to endorse the agreement. Colin Mockler reported that Government Office were satisfied with the content of the agreement, in particular improvement of the stronger communities elements.

A small working group had brought together an agreement that focussed on the four national SSCF outcomes. The process was extremely resource intensive and highlighted the need to develop effective mechanisms for involving VCS organisations in development and delivery of the full LAA.

Partners comments included:

  • Ownership of the SSCF agreement raised issues about Board structure and accountability and would have to be supported in a public arena;
  • SSCF should be a document the community supports in that it would make a difference and should be taken through the council’s Executive;
  • Neighbourhood management was a strong method of driving down crime but York had a long way to go;
  • There were good structures in York to deliver improvements, which made it more difficult to understand our high crime ranking. Enforcement was just one aspect in attempting to reduce crime and other elements of the partnership had a huge role to play in delivering safer communities.
  • LPSA targets, which were agreed in February 06, must be included in SSCF and the full LAA;
  • SSCF funding consisted of approximately £300k from the Home Office, at present mainstream budgets that would achieve targets did not need to be shown on the template;
  • Police Basic Command Unit funding (£230k) would be included in the full LAA from 2006/7;
  • There was no allocation of funding for building stronger communities through SSCF. This would be difficult to deliver without additional resources and the influence of VCS was very important within this theme;
  • Measurements were being developed through the ChangeUp process to keep better records in the Voluntary Sector in order to contribute to SSCF and the LAA targets.

Action – It was agreed that:

  1. Partners would sign off the SSCF agreement; and,
  2. The agreement would be included on council’s Executive schedule for endorsement by Members.

6BASELINE DATA

It was explained that as part of the LAA assessment Government Office would be looking for evidence that partners had a clear analytical base for the outcomes prioritised. In addition, that there were milestones against which to measure progress on achieving targets. As part of the process of identifying LAA priority outcomes, Rachel Johns (Director of Public Health) and Ian Cunningham (Safer York Partnership Data Analyst) made presentations to the Board setting out examples of the headline issues that would have to be taken into consideration.

Rachel presented issues for York arising from the PCT Public Health Report and the draft Community Health Profiles that were due to be made available to all local authorities by the Public Health Observatory (Slides attached at Annex A). Key comments included:

  • The Public Health Report would provide a focus for the Healthy Communities and Older People block, but would also inform other blocks;
  • York had high life expectancy rates and overall mortality rates were good;
  • There were a number of issues concerning health outcomes, lifestyles and the wider determinants of health where York’s performance needed improvement (see slides for detail) including low levels of physical activity, teenage pregnancy rates and high levels of violent crime.

Ian Cunningham explained that at the ward level, Clifton, Guildhall, Heworth and Westfield had the highest levels of deprivation in the City. Ward profile data available for all wards included crime statistics, census information, council Talkabout surveys and lifestyle data from a company called Axiom.

Comments from Board Members included:

  • Building up data sharing protocols would help us as an LSP to target those areas / groups in greatest need;
  • Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) scores were used by the Home Office / Government to allocate funding;
  • Partners should use this data to establish an index of LSP priorities;
  • Indicators could easily worsen if priority issues were not addressed.

7LAA TIMETABLE / PROJECT DELIVERABLES

The national launch event for third round LAA areas, in which York was included, was due to take place on 31 March. It was expected that ODPM would present updated LAA guidance, which took account of the experience of second round LAAs, at the conference. In the meantime, the secretariat had assumed that the negotiation timetable would remain broadly similar to that of the second round.

The scope of work involved in developing the agreement included completion of three distinct phases: preparation, development, refinement and sign-off. Detailed project deliverables included collating baseline data to produce a long list of issues, consulting with stakeholders to develop target priorities and developing a performance management framework to deliver service improvement and more integrated partnership working.