Agenda item

5.1

Each Local Area Committee has a £100,000 budget to address local priorities, identified within their respective Community Plans.  This report set out details of the proposed spending in respect of this £100,000 during the 2022/23 financial year.  The report gave an overview of the general categories of proposed expenditure and sought authorisation from the East Local Area Committee to permit the Community Services Manager, in consultation with the LAC Chair, to spend monies to address identified priorities within the Community Plan.

5.2

RESOLVED: That the East Local Area Committee:-

(i)       notes the proposed anticipated expenditure against the £100,000 budget to address local priorities in the East LAC Community Plan in 2022/23, as detailed in the report; and

(ii)      to the extent that it is not covered by existing authority, authorises the Community Services Manager to make decisions on expenditure relating to the priorities set out in the report provided that:

•      The decision is taken in consultation with the Local Area Committee Chair;

•      The decision may not approve expenditure on any element in excess of the anticipated limit for that element set out in the report; and

•      A report detailing the delegated spending decisions taken by the Community Services Manager is presented to the next Local Area Committee meeting.

5.3

Reasons for Decision

The East LAC was asked to note the broad allocation of funding under the priority headings identified to assist its ability to monitor its budget, and to authorise the Community Services Manager to approve expenditure above the current delegated authority in certain circumstances so that delivery of the Community Plan is not delayed.

5.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

5.4.1

5.4.2

Decisions on any expenditure above the existing authority to the Community Services Manager could be reserved to the LAC but this would delay delivery of priority actions to address specific issues identified in the Community Plan.

All decisions on expenditure to support Community Plan priorities could be delegated to officers.  However, this would restrict the LAC’s ability to monitor its delegated budget and delivery of the Community Plan.

5.1

The East Community Services Manager, Huda Ahmed, gave an overview of how the Local Area Committee budget was intended to be distributed across the themed priorities, referring to the “Report of East Local Area Committee proposed spending 20222-23”.

5.2

Each Local Area Committee had a £100,000 budget to address local priorities, identified within their respective Community Plans.  This report set out details of the proposed spending in respect of this £100,000 during the 2022/23 financial year.  The report gave an overview of the general categories of proposed expenditure and sought authorisation from the East Local Area Committee to permit the Community Services Manager, in consultation with the Local Area Committee Chair, to spend monies to address identified priorities within the Community Plan.

5.3

The East Local Area Committee Community Plan had been formally agreed at the meeting of 23 March, 2022, and page 4 of the spending report showed a breakdown of showed an overview of anticipated spend during 2022/23 against the 3 main priorities: children and young people, environment and communities and neighbourhoods.

5.4

A questioner asked about the proposed expenditure of £2,500 per ward on projects for children and young people, and whether, if necessary, this could be redistributed across wards with more children.

In response, Huda Ahmed advised that each ward had access to ‘ward pot’ based on the Index of Multiple Depravation. The Local Area Committee budget was in addition to this and could help put extra support in place around children and young people. The spending proposal aimed to improve the livelihoods of the whole area and to identify key projects needed to help make those improvements.

5.5

A questioner felt that £100,000 did not feel like a lot of money in the current cost of living and climate crises and asked why insulation advice had not been included in the spending plan. A suggestion had been made at a recent climate change meeting that part of the Council’s wider budget be allocated towards insulation advice.

In response, the Chair advised that local spending priorities had been identified via the Local Area Committee survey.

Councillor Hurst added that a 10 Point Plan for Climate Change Action had been agreed which aimed to put climate at the centre of decision making via routes such as the planning process and housing schemes. This would include support for cladding schemes and roof insulation on the worst affected buildings.

5.6

A volunteer with Sheffield Litter Pickers was concerned about litter and flytipping and noted that the spending plan had no mention of taking stronger enforcement action on litter dropping. He understood that there had been more prosecutions taken in relation to this but wanted to know why enforcement was not given more priority and what happened to money received from fines.

Another questioner was concerned that reporting of flytipping incidents did not always result in enforcement action being taken.

In response, the Chair advised that each Local Area Committee had been allocated a proportion of city-wide funding to tackle flytipping and graffiti, some of which had been allocated to tackle hotspots. This was a city-wide issue, and Local Area Committees would be working closely with the environmental enforcement team. She also explained that funds received via fines were put back into the service and noted that ‘days of action’ had been held in Tinsley and Castlebeck.

Councillor Miskell agreed about the importance of enforcement and noted that this was one of the areas that had suffered due to budget cuts. He advised the questioner to follow up his query and continue to seek answers.

Councillor Drabble noted that it was important to ensure fairness in the way money was distributed. He was concerned that there might be a bias towards larger organisations that had more capacity and hoped that this could be addressed to ensure that smaller organisations also had opportunities.

Lorraine Wood, Head of Communities, confirmed that procedures were in place to ensure there was fairness and opportunity, and that the Local Area Committee team were able to provide support to those smaller organisations when submitting bids for funding.

The Chair noted that ward councillors had the advantage of being aware of the smaller organisations within their areas and could also offer them support.

5.7

A questioner who was involved with a volunteer litter picking group was concerned that some bins in the Norfolk Park area had been removed. This had been reported but not actioned, and the questioner had experienced problems in reporting this issue via the Council’s website and was redirected to the FixMyStreet website.

The Chair confirmed that issues reported via FixMyStreet were passed onto to the relevant Council team. She also noted that the bulk of the cost was around the bin emptying scheduling rather than replacement of bins.

Councillor Miskell thanked those who worked as volunteers for litter picking groups for the excellent work that they carried out. He noted that parts of Norfolk Park had recently undergone a transformation and that now would be a good time to be creative about encouraging residents to use litter bins. He agreed that enforcement action was needed, and felt it was important to encourage residents and park users to make the right choices.

5.8

RESOLVED: that the East Local Area Committee:-

(i)       notes the proposed anticipated expenditure against the £100,000 budget to address local priorities in the East Local Area Committee Community Plan in 2022/23, as detailed in the report; and

(ii)      to the extent that it is not covered by existing authority, authorises the Community Services Manager to make decisions on expenditure relating to the priorities set out in the report provided that:

·       the decision is taken in consultation with the Local Area Committee Chair;

·       the decision may not approve expenditure on any element in excess of the anticipated limit for that element set out in the report; and

·       a report detailing the delegated spending decisions taken by the Community Services Manager is presented to the next Local Area Committee meeting.

5.9

5.10

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

5.10.1

Decisions on any expenditure above the existing authority to the Community Services Manager could be reserved to the LAC but this would delay delivery of priority actions to address specific issues identified in the Community Plan.

5.10.2

All decisions on expenditure to support Community Plan priorities could be delegated to officers.  However, this would restrict the LAC’s ability to monitor its delegated budget and delivery of the Community Plan.