Issue - decisions
Feedback from the Gleadless Valley Masterplan Community Consultation, Proposed Changes to the Masterplan and an Outline of the Key Delegations Needed for Implementation of the Masterplan.
24/03/2022 - Feedback from the Gleadless Valley Masterplan community consultation, proposed changes to the Masterplan and outlines the key delegations needed for implementing the Masterplan.
5.1 |
The report shared the community feedback from the consultation on the draft Masterplan for Gleadless Valley and outlined what was supported by the community and if there were any areas where there was less support from those most affected in the community.
The report also confirmed the blocks that would be replaced or remodelled as part of the Masterplan and noted that a Local Lettings Policy would be needed that would give preference to residents with a demolition priority to enable them to stay within the area.
It also sought approval for the Masterplan and to authorise the Director of Housing to make nonmaterial changes to the draft Masterplan and publish a Final Masterplan and for a number of delegations to the Director of Housing and the Head of Regeneration and Property that were needed to implement the Masterplan. |
|
|
5.2 |
RESOLVED: That Co-operative Executive:-
|
|
|
|
|
5.3 |
Reasons for Decision |
|
|
5.3.1 |
The Council embarked on the masterplan work in 2017 following a grant bid to Government for Estate Regeneration Funding. A fundamental requirement of the grant bid and best practice in estate regeneration is that the communities affected should be engaged in the development and implementation of masterplans. The Council has promised it would consult on the masterplan. The proposals for the masterplan were co-produced with members and community. |
|
|
5.3.2 |
An engagement plan was developed, and all residents and stakeholders have had the opportunity to provide feedback. Feedback has now been collated following a 6-week consultation process, this indicates support overall for the proposals. |
|
|
5.3.3 |
Members of the Gleadless Valley Steering Group have reflected on the feedback and have proposed (Table 3 of the report) the plan is refined in a few small areas, but these do not change the overall goals, principles, vision or financial plan for the masterplan. |
|
|
5.3.4 |
The outcomes that are now sought are:
|
|
|
5.4 |
Alternatives Considered and Rejected |
|
|
5.4.1 |
There would be a high risk of the community losing faith with the Council on this project as they have invested in this work and homes are in urgent need of improvement. The feedback from residents clearly indicates they are concerned about the condition of their homes. There is a high level of support from the residents directly affected and although low survey returns for the overall plan the feedback is overall in support of the improvements that are proposed. |
|
|
|
|
5.4.2 |
The masterplan has been in development for over 4 years and was funded by a grant bid in 2017 to Government. If the plan did not move into delivery stage as an overarching plan the council would still need to commit significant investment and deliver elements of extensive repairs to ensure homes were maintained in line with stock condition surveys. There would be a risk that the homes in need of most interventions would become even less sustainable and this could have a negative impact on the estate, rental income would be lost and reactive repair costs would rise. |
|
|
5.5 |
Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted |
|
|
|
None |
|
|
5.6 |
Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration |
|
|
|
None |
|
|
5.7 |
Respective Director Responsible for Implementation |
|
|
|
Executive Director, Place |
|
|
11.8 |
Relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee If Decision Called In |
|
|
|
Overview and Scrutiny Committee |
|
|
|
Please Note: This decision is not subject to call-in, in accordance with the Fast-Track process set out in Scrutiny Procedure Rule 17 of the Constitution. |