Agenda item

Click here to view the recording of this item on YouTube.

The Committee received a presentation on the Plan for Neighbourhoods from the Regeneration Programmes Manager, Chair of the Plan for Neighbourhood Board and Director of Engaging People Company.

The Chair thanked the Officers for their presentation and invited questions and comments from the Committee.

Councillor Bone referred to Members of the Board currently being business focused and asked for reassurance the Board was going to include community leaders and wider range of Board Members.

Vicky Etheridge, Chair of the Plan for Neighbourhood Board highlighted the neighbourhood Board was different to Council Panels and Committee’s. She commented there were conversations around the governance of the Board, and she expected the Board membership and structure was likely to change going forward.

Councillor Heneghan asked if there was going to be an opportunity for KLAC to have an input to the plan for neighbourhoods as this impacted the Committee’s wards. She asked further if once the plan was close to being decided, if this could be brought back to the Committee.

Vicky Etheridge confirmed these were key conversations to be had and Members would be involved as they were critical in making this plan successful.

Councillor Rust expressed her excitement for this plan for neighbourhoods as it provided flexibility with improving King’s Lynn and this Board provided flexibility for easier and quicker projects. She highlighted Marmot Place which could be linked to the Plan alongside data from Freebridge Community Housing as this would maximise the consultation.

Councillor Kemp commented she welcomed the Neighbourhood Board’s objectives and highlighted the disadvantages to the previous consultation as this was conducted during Covid. She expressed her support with the Ferry in West Lynn being included in the Plan.

Councillor Jones sought clarification if the asset-based community development approach would be used.

Michelle Gant, Director of Engaging People Company confirmed this collaboration would be used to ensure a legacy was left through this engagement.

Councillor Everett sought clarification on who will be making the decision on which money would be spent and where.

The Regeneration Programmes Manager confirmed the Neighbourhood board were the decision makers and the revised scheme meant there was great er delegation of decision from Central Government to local areas.

Vicky Etheridge commented the guidance and criteria was clear from Central Government that the projects reflected the consultation and the priorities of the community.

Councillor Everett questioned if decisions made by the Board were open to the public along with minutes and agendas for the meetings.

The Regeneration Programmes Manager confirmed the agendas and minutes were published on Vision King’s Lynn. She added there were some exempt reports but became public once the commercial sensitivity had passed. She added the Board were looking at being more transparent.

Councillor Colwell commented on the powers that could be used in the Plan for Neighbourhoods programme now and referred specifically to orders with cleaning up areas and fly tipping. He added there was grot spots in the town which needed attention and hoped funding could be used to clean up King’s Lynn.

The Regeneration Programmes Manager confirmed with community groups areas such as this was something they needed to identify which could be dealt with by capacity funding.

Councillor Sayers commented on the governance of the Board and highlighted there were Borough and County representatives. He questioned if after Local Government Reorganisation if relevant Members, from this Committee could be included on the Boards as they represent the relevant areas.

The Regeneration Programmes Manager explained the government guidance was clear in that there would be a limited number of local authority member representation. She added the governance needed to evolve.

Councillor Kemp commented on the governance and highlighted the Borough Council were the accountable financial body. She sought clarification on who was responsible if the project was to overrun. She further added the projects which were ran by the Borough Council and asked who was responsible for allocating the spending of the capacity funding.

The Regeneration Programmes Manager confirmed the Neighbourhood Board was the decision-making body however the Borough Council was accountable body. She commented robustness needed to be ensured with detailed business cases to check the robustness of projects and assurance. She added the Borough Council as the accountable body was the assurance.

Vicky Etheridge commented there was accountability from the body delivering the projects. She highlighted not all projects were being led by the Borough Council and provided the example of the MUCH project which was led by Norfolk County Council.

In response to Councillor Kemp, the Regeneration Programmes Manager explained the Member Major Project Board has a set criteria in terms of what was classified as a major project. She explained the Plan for Neighbourhood would include smaller projects and not fitting the criteria for Member Major Projects Board.

Councillor Ware stressed the importance of being included in the consultation and asked to be included to ensure residents were listened to.

Councillor Fry referred to community engagement and sought clarification on how this was to be measured.

The Regeneration Programmes Manager explained the Neighbourhood Board had learnt from the Town Deal Board and a softer evaluation would be done throughout the Plan for Neighbourhoods which needed to be embedded going forward as the plan would take time to deliver and see the desired outcomes realised.