Agenda item

To receive the report of the Cabinet Member for Communities and Neighbourhoods informing Members of the City’s successful community building activities.

17.1    Councillor Watkins, the Cabinet Member for Communities and Neighbourhoods introduced the report and highlighted key features. She stated that while Asset Based Community Development had been well embedded in the Council’s work,, the development of a Community Interest Company was the next step. Councillor Watkins advised Members that momentum had been gained from a number of national bodies and that the Key Cities group was looking to use Gloucester as a case study. She stated that she sought feedback from Committee Members particularly on the nomination of a charity should the company be wound up in the future.

17.2    Council Wilson expressed his concern that, as the Company’s work start in a limited number of areas, what checks were there to ensure some directors did not dominate the board and limit expansion. He also asked why it would only be the City Council with directorships. The Corporate Director (Partnerships) advised that the articles of association would define the Company as Community Building across the City. In respect of directorships, the Corporate Director stated that the proposal was for the City Council to start the process but to subsequently nominate community leaders.

17.3    Councillor Stephens asked about the financial implications of setting up the Company and whether any funding had been secured. He also expressed concern regarding how the Company would be accountable to the Council given it would fund the Company. The Head of Communities stated that all funding to date and up to April 2020 was through fundraising. The financial commitment contained within the report was for the purpose of underwriting but that fundraising would be possible, particularly for job security of the community builders. The Corporate Director (Partnerships) advised that the Council would cease funding of the Community Interest Company at the end of phase one. She further advised that the Company would be independent and she envisage secondments from independent bodies.

17.4    Councillor Stephens asked how the value and worth of the work would be gauged and stated that more could be done in terms of the level of engagement and projects. The Corporate Director (Partnerships) advised that consultants had been approached to work with the team to look at performance management  and that funders would expect such measure to be in place.

17.5    Councillor Haigh stated that there was an expectation that the Community Interest Company would deliver on making residents’ lives better and, as such, queried what oversight there would be from Members.  Councillor Watkins stated that many community builders were not paid and that their contribution was for the benefit of the community as a whole. The Corporate Director (Partnerships) advised that it had not yet been decided whether the Council would withdraw entirely at some stage. Councillor Haigh asked why the Roundtable had been suggested as the nominated charity in the event the Company is wound up. Councillor Watkins stated that she was very much open to suggestions and that the Roundtable charity was as all encompassing of the City as possible. She further stated that the purpose of nominating such a charity was for it to receive assets rather than take over the operational matters of the charity. In response to a query from Councillor Stephens as to whether it could be considered when it was a material question, Councillor Watkins advised that the potential recipient of any assets would have to be pre-determined.

17.6    Councillor Pullen shared his view that there should be defined outcomes such as improved well-being and community connections and that fundraisers would want to know these. He stated that there had been good work done by community builders in his ward.

17.7    Councillor Hilton stated that he was unsure if the project was working as it should and shared his view that he thought there was a lack of evidence of successful work. He also stated that some Members had found it difficult to get involved in community building. Councillor Watkins stated that she would speak with officers about keeping in touch with regarding community building. She also stated that while it was difficult to measure subjective material, evaluations had been undertaken. Councillor Watkins further reiterated that, if it was not working well, there was the opetion to cease operations at the end of phase one.

17.8    Councillor Lewis stated that he understood the difficulties with anecdotal evidence and suggested that the Company be allowed to ‘bed in’ and to keep communication with Members going.

17.9    Councillor Haigh shared her view that it was important that Community Builders work with Members and that Members needed to be involved in the governance of the organisation.

17.10  Councillor Ryall asked whether, given there were experts in evealuation and the Council was always looking to work with the University, a valuation study could be conducted. Councillor Watkins responded that she would be discussing how the University could be more involved.

17.11  Councillor Toleman suggested that there were a number of rotary clubs and that one of these could be nominated to receive any assets in the event of the Company ceasing operations.

17.12  Councillor Organ stated that much work had been undertaken but was not known as there had been partial communication in some areas. He suggested that Members have sight of the Community Builders’ roles and responsibilities as well as the details of who the Community Builders are. Councillor Watkins undertook for these to be supplied to Members.

17.13   Councillor Haigh proposed the following recommendations:

Cabinet consider providing criteria for measuring how the Company meets its aims;

A review is undertaken at the conclusion of Phase 1 to determine whether the Company had met its aims and, if it is determined that it had not, to cease operations;

To conduct a canvass of charitable organisations in the City and for Members to be asked to provide nominations for a particular charity to be the recipient of any assets in the event of the Company’s dissolution.

17.14   Councillor Stephens proposed the following recommendations:

A further update on the Company’s operations be provided to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee prior to the commencement of Phase 2;

Cabinet examine a performance management framework and commission an evaluation of impact study in partnership with the University of Gloucestershire.

17.15   RESOLVED that: -

The Overview and Scrutiny Committee RECOMMEND to Cabinet  that:

(1)  Cabinet consider providing criteria for measuring how the Company meets its aims;

(2)  A further update on the Company’s operations be provided to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee prior to the commencement of Phase 2;

(3)  A review is undertaken at the conclusion of Phase 1 to determine whether the Company had met its aims and, if it is determined that it had not, to cease operations;

(4)  To conduct a canvass of charitable organisations in the City and for Members to be asked to provide nominations for a particular charity to be the recipient of any assets in the event of the Company’s dissolution;

(5)  Cabinet examine a performance management framework and commission an evaluation of impact study in partnership with the University of Gloucestershire.