Meeting: Cabinet (County Hall, Durham - Committee Room 2 - 22/01/2009 10:00:00 AM)
Item: A4 Area Action Partnerships
| Report of Lorraine O’Donnell, Assistant Chief Executive |
1 Purpose
To outline for Cabinet discussion and decision the proposed geography, function, governance arrangements, broad budgetary criteria and transition arrangements for the 14 Area Action Partnerships (AAPs) to be established in County Durham.
Subject to these proposals being agreed, the report also sets out a number of issues that will need to be addressed in order to hold a series of inaugural AAP meetings across the County in April 2009.
2 Background The County Council’s original proposal for unitary status outlined a model for community engagement and local partnership working through the development of between 12 and 14 Area Action Partnerships. A joint county and district officer team, the Areas and Participation workstream, was convened as part of the County Durham unitary programme in January 2008 to carry out research and development work around the Area Action Partnership model throughout 2008/09.
Following the May 2008 election, the new County Council Cabinet expressed a wish to consult stakeholders and members of the public on the AAP model. A major consultation exercise was therefore conducted during July - September 2008 with 17 facilitated major events, over 70 discrete representations from organisations and over 1000 individuals involved. The consultation findings are available on the Council’s website at:
http://county.durham.gov.uk/sites/lgraks/Pages/AAPConsultation.aspx On 1st October 2008 Full Council took cognisance of the findings from the summer consultation process, and agreed its High Level Blueprint document making reference to fourteen new Area Action Partnerships based around the following focal points: -
· Bishop Auckland
· Chester-le-Street
· Consett
· Crook/Willington
· Durham
· Easington
· Ferryhill/Chilton
· Lanchester/Durham Rural West
· Newton Aycliffe
· Sedgefield Rural Corridor/Durham Rural East
· Spennymoor
· Stanley
· Teesdale-(based around Barnard Castle)
· Weardale- (based around Stanhope)
In order to deliver on the mandate provided by the Blueprint document, a significant amount of further development work was undertaken by the Areas and Participation workstream to address the detailed issues and develop options for Elected Members around the final:
· Geography of the 14 AAPs;
· Function of AAPs (roles and responsibilities);
· Governance of AAPs (membership, decision making processes and ‘fit’ within the overall County Durham Partnership structure);
· Broad criteria and processes for area and member budgets; and
· Transition from District Local Strategic Partnerships to AAPs.
In developing further proposals the workstream had regard for:
· The proposals within the original unitary bid
· Feedback from the summer consultation events
· National drivers - including the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act, Communities in Control Engagement White Paper and the Comprehensive Area Assessment guidance
· Best practice evaluation
This development work was distilled into a further consultation document which was subject to debate and discussion in a series of seminars and presentations with stakeholders, the County Durham Partnership framework (Thematic Partnerships and District Local Strategic Partnerships), Town and Parish Councils and County Council Councillors in November and December 2008. Copies of the consultation document were also sent to over 2500 stakeholders, and an online questionnaire was available on the County Council’s website during this period, with a published end date of the 5th January. The findings of this consultation process are outlined in Appendix 2 and will be compiled into a summary document to be placed on the Council’s website.
The most frequent responses to the recent consultation are set out the remainder of this report where relevant to the issues for decision. Prior to considering those specific issues, it is worthwhile reflecting on the main messages from what has been an extensive process. Whilst inevitably there are a number of issues where a vast range of differing views were given , there are many areas where there was a consensus that should not be overlooked. These included:
· Geographies - in the vast majority of cases a very clear steer was given as to which AAPs areas preferred to be located, and many public responses welcomed the move to a more local approach.
· Role and Function - although a number of respondents requested more clarity on the precise role of AAPs, there was general assent to the role and function as set out in the consultation document.
· Staffing Resource - there was general agreement that AAPs will need a dedicated staffing resource if they are to be successful.
· Involvement - there was a cross sector desire to be involved in the AAP process, that does pose a selection issue given the proposal for limited positions, but is clearly preferable to the alternative of struggling to generate interest.
· The Forum/Board structure - whilst there were a limited number of comments regarding the proposed frequency of both sets of meetings, there was general assent to the overall model.
· The need for Action - this was by far and away the area of greatest agreement, in all of the consultation exercises there was a strongly expressed desire for AAPs to live up to their title and to clearly demonstrate results.
Many other responses were not so much suggesting alternatives to the model as proposed in the consultation, but were seeking clarity as to how AAPs would work in practice. While the recommendations in this report will hopefully go some way to providing that clarity, it also needs to be recognised that many issues will only become clearer when the tasks set out in Section 8 of this report are completed and AAPs are in operation.
In terms of the recommendations in the remainder of this report, the approach taken has been to benchmark against the key area of agreement - the desire for AAPs to lead to action and make a difference - and to suggest an approach that has the greatest chance of making this a reality.
3 Proposed Geography for AAPs Section 2 above outlines the 14 focal points for AAPs agreed by Full Council in October.
Elected Members were aware that the summer consultation process had generated options for some specific settlements in relation to their alignment with an AAP. In order to resolve the issue of final geography of AAPs, thirty six parish areas (and one non-parished electoral division) were identified as having options around AAP alignment, and to help clarify the AAP boundaries in these areas, thirteen meetings were organised for local facilitated debate on the issue. Using parish and town council boundaries as the ‘building blocks’ for the new AAPs, local community organisations were invited along with the relevant Parish/Town Councils and County Councillors.
The Leader of the Council and the Portfolio Holder for Local Partnerships were clear with attendees that if a consensus could be reached either at the conclusion of each consultation meeting (or by a specified period thereafter), then Cabinet would be requested to endorse the view of local people during the decision making process unless the preference would lead to geographic anomalies such as ‘islands’ of parishes within an AAP.
Appendix 3 provides a summary of the debate at each of the thirteen geography consultation meetings, updated where appropriate with follow-up responses from the attendees. As detailed in the appendix, a consensus view was received from all areas consulted with the exception of Bear Park in the City of Durham. Whilst there was a consensus reached in Tow Law in Wear Valley and Etherley in Teesdale, the preferences raise the prospect of irregular AAP boundaries.
The approach taken for all areas has been to, wherever practical, comply with the results of the consultation as this would have the greater chance of buy-in to the AAP and therefore increase its prospects of leading to action. So whilst placing Tow Law in the Crook and Willington AAP would mean it is an ‘island’ in the neighbouring AAP, it is only separated from its preferred location by an extremely narrow strip of agricultural land. As for Etherely, whilst placing it in the Teesdale AAP would create an irregular border with the Bishop Auckland AAP, it would not be totally isolated geographically from the Teesdale AAP, and with a 7 to 1 vote by the Parish to be located in the Teesdale APP, the County Council has received a clear steer as to the preference in the community.
As for the area where no consensus was achieved, Bear Park, account is taken of the fact that on the night of the consultation, there was a very small majority in favour of being located in the Durham AAP, a view which is strengthened by the much clearer majority of 77% in a survey carried out by local County Councillors (details of which are contained in Appendix 4) in favour of the same.
Taking these factors into account,
Cabinet is asked to agree the RECOMMENDATIONS for Tow Law, Etherely and Bear Park as set out below:- | Bearpark | Options are Mid-Durham Rural West and Durham City.
Recommendation Durham City |
| Tow Law | Options are Weardale, Mid-Durham Rural West and Crook / Willington.
Recommendation Crook / Willington |
| Etherely | Options are Teesdale and Bishop Auckland
Recommendation - Teesdale |
Subject to the agreement of the above
Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to agree the AAP boundaries inline with the preferences expressed in the consultation process and as outlined in the AAP plans attached to this report in Appendix 5. In light of debate during the range of consultations undertaken, it is apparent that AAPs names will be of significance to local people. Ideally local people would feel an attachment and belonging to their AAP. It is therefore suggested that each AAP name is agreed at their inaugural partnership launch event, but in the interim period, and given the recommendations set out above,
Cabinet is asked to endorse the following working titles for AAPs: - · Easington AAP
· East Durham Rural Corridor AAP
(formally Sedgefield Rural Corridor AAP) · Bishop Auckland and Shildon AAP
(formally Bishop Auckland AAP) · Chester-le-Street AAP
· Consett AAP
· Crook, Willington and Tow Law AAP
(formally Crook and Willington AAP) · Durham City AAP
· Ferryhill and Chilton AAP
· Mid Durham Rural West AAP
(formally Lanchester/Durham Rural West AAP) · Newton Aycliffe AAP
· Spennymoor AAP
· Stanley AAP
· Teesdale AAP
· Weardale AAP
4 Proposed Function of AAPs 4.1
Context In common with any Council services, a function of AAPs must be to contribute to the achievement of the new Council’s vision, and that of the County Durham Partnership. But critically, AAP’s also have the vital role of ensuring community views are taken into account when reviewing those visions.
It is clearly imperative that there is a common understanding of AAP functions amongst the many individuals and organisations that it is hoped will contribute to their development. Again, it is also clear that whatever functions are agreed now, they will need to be revisited as AAPs evolve.
4.2
Description of Functions The proposed functions of AAPs as contained in the latest consultation exercise were based around the four themes of; Engagement, Empowerment, Local Action, and Performance.
As highlighted earlier in this report, overall the consultation did not raise any major issues with proposed functionality, with the one overriding comment that it will be imperative that the AAP’s lead to positive action within local communities. Other comments tended to be requesting further clarity as to how AAPs would work in practice, with some of the key suggestions being:-
· The need for good local information within a Performance Management Framework that focuses the work of AAPs on addressing Local Area Agreement (LAA) and Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) outcomes.
· The need for a clear focus on a small number of priority issues relevant to each AAP area.
· The need to balance a focus on countywide issues with a requirement to react to local concerns.
Whilst partnerships and stakeholders all recognised the potential value of the AAPs and expressed a willingness to engage with the process, some did highlight that a move to a more local, settlement based approach, will pose a number of challenges that will need to be overcome as AAPs develop. These included a concern as to the level of data that might be available for some of the smaller AAPs without compromising the confidentiality of residents; as well as the need to develop a working relationship with some existing local engagement mechanisms - such as the Police PACTS (Police And Community Together meetings).
Work is currently on-going with the agencies concerned to address these issues, but given the general acceptance of proposals in the consultation (as well as the references to what AAPs are not i.e.district councils, LSPs, member area panels or town and parish councils), Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to agree to the functions of the AAPs as set out below :-
Engagement
AAPs will provide a means:
·
For the Council and partner organisations to engage in a meaningful, two-way dialogue with people in their local communities. ·
To build and shape local identity in order that communities can speak with a clear and strong voice. ·
To promote community cohesion and support debate, ensuring that all voices are heard. ·
To encourage local people to engage with the local democratic process and to be involved in shaping their communities. ·
To recognise, celebrate and support the role of individual activists and volunteers. ·
To streamline and focus cross-public sector consultation with local people. Empowerment AAPs will provide a means: ·
To clearly communicate issues and priorities to public sector partners, based on an analysis of local data and opinions, and to develop a shared vision for an area. ·
To involve local people in the way local services are planned and delivered and to assist partners meet their duty to involve people in decisions, policies and services that may affect them or be of interest to them. ·
To assist partners to effectively combine their efforts in a local area to improve local outcomes, narrow gaps between different areas of the County and improve quality of life. Local Action AAPs will provide a means: ·
To resolve local issues through either: o
Direct action through use of its own development funding or by means of engendering voluntary community action. o
By dialogue with the County Council service departments and County Councillors with regard to influencing use of their delegated budgets. o
Negotiation with the Council’s partners. ·
To develop a focussed Annual Action Plan for an area, targeting the key issues that the AAP will seek to resolve for a locality. Performance AAPs will provide a means: ·
To improve the access to quality performance data to enable local people and service users to understand performance as it applies to their area. ·
To support the impact of the County Durham Partnership in achieving its priority outcomes. ·
To input into the Comprehensive Area Assessment process for County Durham. ·
To monitor public sector performance in the AAP area. 4.3
Further clarity on role Clearly, there needs to be a balance struck between AAPs contributing towards LAA outcomes and the ability to focus on local priorities. Indeed, there needs to be an acceptance that the LAA may need to change to reflect local issues as they emerge, and as a result of influence from AAPs.
In order to achieve this balance it is recommended that the County Durham Partnership (supported by the County Council) undertake an analysis of data at AAP levels (utilising information from District LSPs and the Place Survey) to provide a local area profile, highlighting relative distances from LAA targets for each AAP, to act as a stimulus for debate at the AAP Forum around priority setting.
In order to translate ‘talking’ into action it is RECOMMENDED that:
·
There needs to be a focus on a small number of priorities to concentrate efforts and help ensure results. These need to be, based on LAA priorities but allowed to reflect local issues. Ideally, each AAP would be asked to identify one to five priorities on an annual basis where they feel they can have the greatest positive impact and to develop Acton Plans setting out how they are to be addressed. ·
Council service areas and partner agencies will identify link officers to respond and champion the priorities, as well as take up local issues as they arise throughout the year. These officers would attend AAPs when required but would not necessarily have a seat on the AAP Board - particularly Council service link officers. ·
Whilst the major focus of AAPs will be on the identified priorities, it is proposed meetings should commence with a time limited standard agenda item where (i) the AAP Coordinator will raise local issues requiring action (ii) feedback is given on local issues raised at the previous meeting. 5 Proposed Governance Model / Terms of Reference 5.1
Overall Structure Building on the principles of inclusivity and flexibility outlined above, it is anticipated that each AAP will seek to reflect the overall interests of the Community it serves and offer a forum of participation for all with an active interest in their area. In order to balance the need for inclusivity with effective local decision making, a dual structure was proposed in the consultation, both of which will build on the existing network of local neighbourhood groups to bring together at the area level:
· An Area Forum for each AAP area facilitating debate and participatory activity for ‘all comers’ twice on an annual basis to consider issues such as:
o Defining local priorities
o Agreeing an annual local ‘plan’
o Dialogue with partner organisations around their key decisions and strategic plans for the year
o Reviewing progress against LAA Outcomes
o Innovative approaches to community-led decision making and engagement (e.g. participatory budgeting exercises) · An Area Board for each AAP area which would meet initially on a monthly basis to consider issues such as:
o Delivery against the Area Action Plan
o Directing local interventions / problem solving (task and finish groups)
o Dialogue with partner organisations (operationally-focussed representatives) around service issues and performance
o Manage and monitor spend against Area budgets
o Seek dialogue with Councillors to provide alignment between the Area Action Plan and their neighbourhood budgets
o Regular updates regarding performance, progress against LAA targets; and
o Feedback on issues escalated to the County Durham Partnership or to partner organisations.
By taking this dual approach, it is intended not only to strike a balance between the need to provide a means for all to be directly involved in the AAP process whilst ensuring there is focus to achieve action, it should also help ensure there is capacity within partners to support the process (as set out in the following section). Although the proposal for bi-annual Forum meetings and monthly board meeting might need to be reviewed overtime, but it does tend to reflect the proven practice in a number of district LSPs. It is therefore RECOMMENDED that Cabinet agrees the dual approach of a Forum and Board for AAPs.
5.2
Membership It is anticipated that the Area Forum referenced above would be open to all-comers without the need for formal governance arrangements. Area Forum events would clearly need to be managed and facilitated to ensure effective participation, but it is anticipated that this would be through a workshop and participatory approach rather than through a formal decision making committee or Board. It is envisaged that in recognition of capacity issues with partner agencies, senior representation would be encouraged to these limited number of large scale events, which is likely to result in an overall reduction in calls on their time compared to the current district LSP requirements.
Whilst there was general acceptance in the consultation of the need for a Board with limited membership to help ensure action, the actual format of that structure generated the most comments overall - and there was little consistency in their nature.
As to what was proposed in the consultation to ensure the sustainability and effectiveness of partnership working, it was suggested that the Board model must eliminate the potential for a single partner or sector to dominate membership. It was therefore proposed that a starting point for Board’s membership would be a ‘thirds model’ made up of:
· One third Elected Members
· One third members of the public
· One third representatives of partner organisations
It was suggested that each Area Board will have a limit to the overall size of membership, with each ‘third’ above nominating 7 representatives, limiting the overall Board size to 21 members with public attendance and open observation of meetings. The Board may however co-opt individuals from outside of the full membership for specific time bound tasks ‘task and finish’ groups,
As for the response to these proposals, as highlighted, a range of views were expressed, the key ones being highlighted below: - · The majority of Elected Members wished to have a presence at the AAP Board, particularly when discussing Neighbourhood (Member) budgets. · Town and Parish Councils expressed a need for a larger proportion of seats for Elected Members (including Town and Parish Councillors) - a total of nine with at least four from Town and Parish Councils. (i.e. moving away from the concept of an equal balance.) · Some partners were concerned not with the proposed numbers on the Boards but with capacity to support 14 AAP’s. · There was a general concern by the ’public’ that they will be excluded from the process. · Elected members and partners felt there needs to be a robust and transparent process for the selection of ‘public’ representatives, ensuring there is a balance of representation with some mandate from existing neighbourhood/special interest organisations.
Clearly, it is not possible to meet all of the findings from the consultation process and a balance needs to be struck, measured against the yardstick of ensuring AAPs lead to positive action. Taking this into account, Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to agree
·
that the need for balance in the AAP Boards is maintained. ·
That formal (voting) membership is limited to a maximum Board of 21 members. However, this needs to take into account: | - | meetings should be open and accessible to all who may want to attend; |
| - | as referred to under the Function Section, each AAP should commence with a standard agenda item for the AAP Coordintor to raise local concerns and seek a response; |
| - | where there are more than six county councillors in an AAP area, membership will operate on a rolling basis, reviewed every 2 years and with each representative having a nominated deputy ; |
| - | when Member budgets are discussed by an AAP, all relevant County Councillors will be in attendance to outline their proposed use of the funding. |
| - | The aim at meetings will be to, wherever possible, agree by consensus and not rely on the need for formal voting on items |
·
Town and Parish council representation on AAPs should be safeguarded by means of having a minimum of one of the Elected Member Board positions where they exist in an AAP area. (Where an AAP has more than six Unitary Councillors they would have one position, but where there are less, they would make up the remaining places.) ·
Based on latest relevant government guidance, in terms of Comprehensive Areas Assessments and the Communities in Control White Paper, as well as the consultation results (including early results from the Place Survey) it is proposed the seven partner positions should be made up of : The County Council (a lead senior officer for each AAP), the Police, the PCT (or a nomination by them), The Fire Service, a VCS umbrella organisation, a business representative and a relevant major social housing provider. ·
The public representation is sought through the proven method used within the health sector when establishing Foundation Trusts: by a recruitment campaign for ‘general members’ (in this case AAP Forums) and selection from the ‘general members’ for positions on the Board. This method should also help raise awareness of the AAPs within their local communities, opening them up to all for general membership, but having a selection process that will help ensure there is balance on the Board and that they represent a cross section of society. 5.3
Decision-Making and Representation Clearly, to operate effectively, it will be necessary for the AAP boards to have in place a set of procedures and protocols. Initial work on these procedures is about to commence with the support of the County Council’s legal officers. In order to set the framework for that work, Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to agree the outline decision-making and representation framework as set out in Appendix 6 of this report.
6 Proposed Funding Models
As highlighted throughout this report, the overriding message from the consultation on AAPs has been the desire for them to lead to action and to result in improved services that meet local needs. Assuming this is achieved, then the funding influenced by AAPs will ultimately encompass the mainstream budgets of public sector agencies working in the county. However, the consultation also recognised that in order to help stimulate change, attract interest in the AAPs and demonstrate more immediate impact, then it is critical that there are locality budgets that AAPs have a direct influence in allocating.
In recognition of this need, the consultation has consistently highlighted the proposed availability of two County Council locality budgets - an Area Budget allocated to each AAP and Member budgets. Not surprisingly, the issue of budgets generated a significant amount of comments within the consultation process. Whilst there was general agreement for the need for Area Budgets to fund AAP Coordinators, there was less agreement on the decision making processes for Members budgets - the issue being the extent of influence AAPs have over the funding.
The background research and analysis suggests that for both Area and Member budgets, the development towards a more inclusive scheme would be the most effective. A more inclusive scheme will increase the voice of local people, strengthen local democracy, enhance awareness and transparency of public budgets, target spending, build community cohesion, improve legitimacy and reputation.
Whilst acknowledging that the Council’s budget process is yet to determine the final allocations made to Area and Member budgets, the amount is likely to represent a substantial investment for the Authority. As such, both funds will require a comprehensive set of criteria to be developed in consultation with the Council’s Section 151 Officer. However, to assist in that process, and taking into account best practice and the results of the consultation, Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to agree the following core principles for the development of criteria for Area and Member budgets: -
Member Budgets: -
·
Member budgets should be renamed as Neighbourhood Budgets to reflect their purpose. ·
Individual projects or service/facilities improvements must have a minimum spend of £2,000. ·
Members will make the final recommendation for spend, but in doing so, this must be in discussion with the appropriate Area Action Partnership Board. These discussions should be quarterly, where Members outline proposed spend and the Board is able to comment on the extent proposals meet local priorities and whether there may be duplication with mainstream budgets or the capacity for added value through matching resources. These presentations will be made by all Members in an AAP area and will not be limited to nominated to the AAP Board. ·
Uncommitted funds identified at the end of the financial year should not be carried forward and shall be returned to the council’s central reserves, unless approval is sought in exceptional circumstances from the Section 151 Officer (e.g. building up a reserve for a large priority project) ·
AAP coordinators will be required to assist in technical appraisals and to help alignment with local priorities. ·
To assist in administration of budgets, wherever possible, Members will aim to seek sign-off for proposals on a quarterly basis Area Budgets: - ·
It was envisaged in the unitary bid that each ‘area’ (as defined by Area Action Partnership boundary) will have a budget of c.£250,000 of which £100,000 is to cover administration and staffing costs and £150,000 is for local initiatives (final amount will be subject to decision within the ongoing budget process) . ·
Individual projects or service/facilities improvements must have a minimum spend of £5,000 (with the exception of a Small Grants Scheme), meet local priorities. ·
Decisions on expenditure from Area budgets must be made through the Area Action Partnership, and demonstrate community involvement. ·
An element of the resources must be utilised for a Small Grants Scheme to allow for some projects below the general thresholds of £2,000 and £5,000.
General Criteria:-
Expenditure on Area or Member / Neighbourhood budgets will be formally delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive acting in consultation with the AAP Board and individual members as appropriate.
Eligibility will be limited to non profit making groups and organisations. Individuals and profit making organisations will not be eligible.
All investments in projects, facilities and improvements will:
·
Meet identified need ·
Contribute to locality and county wide outcomes especially LAA outcomes. ·
Improve social, economic and environmental well-being ·
Not undermine council or partners’ policies or service delivery ·
Be lawful ·
Adhere to County Council audit processes around spend of public money ·
Not incur ongoing revenue costs unless agreed with the relevant service provider(s). 7 Next Steps - Implementation and LSP Transition
Assuming agreement can be gained on the issues set out in this report, it is envisaged that the inaugural meetings of the 14 AAP Forums will aim to take place in April 2009.
In seeking approval for the recommendations set out in the report, it is accepted that Cabinet is being requested to make some sensitive decisions. While the report attempts to take a balanced response to the extensive consultation carried out on AAPs, it clearly cannot meet all of the varying opinions expressed over the last 6 months of development. When reaching a decision, it should be noted that: -
· This is only the start of the process, if AAPs are successful, then they will inevitably evolve and the framework agreed by the Council will have to amend and change.
· AAPs are only one form of engagement mechanism with communities and other processes will remain open for communities to influence service provision.
· The proposals set out in this report are not the full picture, further clarity will be achieved once these key issues are agreed and further work can then be carried out on the outstanding issues that remain to be resolved.
Given the scale of the change to a settlement based AAP model, it is not surprising that the scale of the outstanding issues is extensive. Some of these have been highlighted in the report, but the list includes, in no particular order of priority: -
· Liaison with the new Head of Property and Assets to identify potential accommodation for the AAP Coordinators within communities- as well as meeting locations for the Forums and Boards.
· The development of ‘meeting procedures and protocols’ in liaison with the County’s Legal Section.
· Developing area profiles, in partnership with the County Durham Partnership and district LSPs for the inaugural AAP meetings, as well coordinating 14 such meetings
· Clarifying with stakeholders any areas of outstanding uncertainty with the AAP framework.
· Engaging with partner agencies over representation and finalising arrangements for recruiting public representatives.
· Developing a series of performance measures for AAPs to assess their impact.
· Working with district LSP’s on transition plans that pass on local knowledge, best practice and ensure ongoing local initiatives and programmes have delivery mechanisms in place following the cessation of district LSP’s in March, 2009.
· Working with the County Durham Partnership framework to ensure there are mechanisms in place to progress the work of District LSP Thematic Partnerships
· Liaison with the Head of Human Resources to ensure the recruitment of AAP Coordinators is progressed and the associated community engagement resources are structured to support the AAP framework.
Clearly, this is an extensive work programme and it will be necessary to engage with the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny Committee to determine if the Council’s scrutiny function can be of assistance in progressing these any of these items.
8 Recommendations 8.1 Cabinet is RECOMMENDED to agree the proposals as set out in this report with regard to Area Action Partnership:- 8.1.1 Geographies (Section 3) 8.1.2 Working titles(Section 3)
8.1.3 Functions(Section 4)
8.1.4 Role(Section 4)
8.1.5 Overall Structure(Section 5) 8.1.6 Membership(Section 5)
8.1.7 Decision making and representation framework(Section 5)
8.1.8 Core funding principles(Section 6)
8.2 Cabinet is asked to note that the proposals set out above will be kept under review as Area Action Partnerships are developed throughout the County.
Contact: Gordon Elliott Tel: 01207 218242 Appendix 1 - Implications
LGR
Area Action Partnerships (AAPs) were a key facet of the original bid for unitary status. The development and consultation work leading to the recommendations in this paper has been directed through the LGR Programme by the Areas and Participation workstream.
Finance
The original unitary bid document outlined indicative figures for AAP budgets and Member / Neighbourhood budgets. The final allocations regarding AAP and Member / Neighbourhood budgets are currently being evaluated and considered by Elected Members through the 2009/10 budget process.
Staffing
Similarly, the original unitary bid document proposed that an area coordinator should be appointed for each AAP with appropriate administrative support, with this support funded from part of the AAP budget. The final staffing structure which will drive and support the AAP model is currently being developed by the Assistant Chief Executive and new Head of Partnerships and Community Engagement.
Equality and diversity
N/A
Accommodation
It is anticipated that AAPs will be managed and supported locally through an office presence in each of the relevant 14 areas. In advance of the launch of AAPs in April 2009, accommodation requirements will be developed to ensure the ‘best fit’ with arrangements for Customers and Access and Local Elected Member Support.
Crime and disorder
AAPs will provide a key forum for community engagement around community safety issues, and the Community Safety Partnership has been a key consultee in the development process.
Sustainability
AAPs will provide a key forum for community engagement around sustainability issues, and the Environment and Sustainability Partnership has therefore been a key consultee in the development process.
Human rights
N/A
Localities and Rurality
AAPs are envisaged as the key bridge between the unitary council and the diverse needs of the County’s various communities. The geography of AAPs has reflected local people’s views around natural community areas based on extensive consultation, and in a number of instances local views re-enforced the aggregation of communities at the area level to better reflect, recognise and articulate the needs of rural communities.
Young people
AAPs will provide a key forum for community engagement with young people in a specific geographical area, and the Children’s Trust has therefore been a key consultee in the development process.
Consultation
There has been extensive consultation in the development of these proposals. All information relating to the consultation process can be accessed at the following link:
http://county.durham.gov.uk/sites/lgraks/Pages/Consultations.aspx
Health
AAPs will provide a key forum for community engagement around health issues, and the Health and Wellbeing Partnership has therefore been a key consultee in the development process.
To view the appendices and maps, please refer to PDF attachment or Hard Copies Located in Corporate Services.
Attachments
Map 14 - Mid Durham Rural West.pdf;
Map 13 - Spennymoor.pdf;
Map 12 - Ferryhill and Chilton.pdf;
Map 11 - Newton Aycliffe.pdf;
Map 10 - Chester-le-Street.pdf;
Map 9 - Stanley.pdf;
Map 8 - Consett.pdf;
Map 7 - Easington.pdf;
Map 6 - East Durham Rural Corridor.pdf;
Map 5 - Durham City.pdf;
Map 4 - Bishop Auckland.pdf;
Map 3 - Teesdale.pdf;
Map 2 - Weardale.pdf;
Map 1 - Crook and Willington.pdf;
Area Action Partnerships.pdf