A deputation was received from Mr Dave Morris as per
standing orders in the Haringey Constitution, Part Four, Section B,
Paragraph 30.
Mr Morris made the following points as part of his
deputation:
- He explained
the historic and current policy of the Council’s support of
Community Centres in the borough. He explained that the current
Cabinet had committed to improved partnership working, which was
welcomed, but stressed that there needed to be a focus on securing
appropriate leases for buildings utilised. He explained that there
needed to be a 100% rent offset based on services provided by
Community Centres, which would benefit the Council through the
lessening of the burden on Council services. He explained that he
recognised the current financial challenges, but noted that good
partnership work with the community would help resolve pressures on
Council services with the Council’s support.
- It was
explained that there were concerns with the Social Value Matrix and
the potential for constraints on officers to meet arbitrary
targets.
The Cabinet Member for Communities made the
following points in response:
- That the
Voluntary, Community and Faith sector provides vital support to
communities, including most vulnerable, and that the Council
welcomes their support. It was stressed that the Council was
working to seek common ground with the Voluntary, Community and
Faith sector within the policy framework, and that the policy aimed
to create a good framework and stability for these groups. It was
explained that the Council had worked to co-produce the policy with
Voluntary, Community and Faith sector groups
- It was
explained that the Council’s property portfolio needed
significant attention, as it had not been managed well in the past,
and that this policy sought to address some of the
issues.
- It was
explained that the Community Assets Social Value policy, which had
been developed by the Council in collaboration with Voluntary,
Community and Faith sector, aligned with the approach which had
been taken by other comparable local authorities.
- The social
value criteria was outlined and it was explained that this would be
used to assess the impact of the service for the community. It was
additionally explained that the request for a 100% rent offset was
not sustainable for the Council, and that the 80% proposed offset
would be sufficient, and that funds raised would provide support in
maintaining buildings, as well as officer time to help community
groups to develop their offer further.
- It was
stressed that the Council would continue to work with VCFS partners
and will work to find an effective way of acknowledging and valuing
the services provided.
- It was
explained that the Council was working with early adopters to
understand impact, and the Council was also open to amending
capping arrangements following work with early adopters. It was
stressed the need to test the Social Value Matrix with early
adopters to consider the impacts on community groups.
RESOLVED:
- To
note the deputation
Following discussion on this item, it was asked whether the
Community Assets Social Value Policy, linked with this deputation,
should be brought forward to follow this discussion.
RESOLVED:
That
the agenda be amended to bring the Community Assets Social Value
Policy next on the agenda.