REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DEL

REPORT TO CABINET 9th APRIL 2008

RIVER STEWARDSHIP COMPANY FORMATION AND COUNCIL PARTICIPATION

1.0 Purpose of Report 1.1 The purpose of the report is : a) to highlight the growing importance of waterside sites in ’s economic regeneration and leisure strategies and the consequent need to address the management of the city’s main urban rivers in a more effective way b) to seek endorsement of the pilot stewardship scheme on part of the River Don between Neepsend and Meadowhall to be funded initially from European Union and South Yorkshire Key Fund, including the attached Business Plan summary c) to approve the setting up of a new River Stewardship Company and the participation of the City Council in the company in partnership with Groundwork Sheffield, the Sheffield Wildlife Trust and the Environment Agency

2.0 Background 2.1 Water quality in the urban River Don and Sheffield Canal is now generally good and supports a healthy and growing coarse fishery as well as a varied fauna including heron, moorhen, dipper, kingfisher and otter. The banks are lined with self- set trees especially willow, alder and birch and a profusion of plants, including an exotic mix of native species and foreign imports such as fig, Himalayan balsam and Japanese knotweed the last of which is becoming particularly problematic.

2.2 This improvement has taken place over the last 25 years and is mainly due to the decline and better control of industrial pollution and the elimination of storm water sewage overflows by the Don Valley Trunk Sewer and other major investments.

2.3 New development is now under way or imminent on most of the Central River Don on sites at Neepsend, Kelham Island, Exchange Riverside, Blonk St, Wicker, Smithfields and Savile House. There are also major development proposals along the Lower Don at Meadowhall and Vantage Park, on the Canal at Attercliffe/Woodbourn and along the lower Porter and Sheaf Valleys. All these developments offer potential for river improvement.

2.4 Over the same period a continuous public walk/cycle-route has been established or is now under construction to form the Upper Don and the Five Weirs Walks from Rutland Rd, Neepsend as far downstream as Town Centre (about 12km in total). The Sheffield and Tinsley Canal forms a roughly parallel route of another 6km joining the Don at Tinsley. Together these routes combine to create an 18km circuit of waterside cycle footpaths, linked to the Trans Pennine Trail, the National Cycle Network and many other local routes.

2.5 The new routes are now well used both for walking, cycling, jogging, canoeing and fishing activities and for occasional major events (e.g. sponsored walks). They are connected to the Trans Pennine Trail and the National Cycle Routes. Part of the FWW was included in this years Yorkshire In Bloom route for the first time.

2.6 The Sheffield First City Strategy 2005-10 identifies Environmental Excellence as one of its five Key Themes to be delivered inter alia by enhancing our natural assets and strengthening the environmental business sector. Following this lead Sheffield First for Environment’s Waterways Strategy Group, brings together all interested parties from the public and voluntary sector convened by the City Council and Groundwork. One of its priorities is to promote improved stewardship of the city’s waterways.

2.7 Under the aegis of this Group a proposal has been developed for several stakeholders to work together to provide a river stewardship service, organised as a Company Limited by Guarantee along the model of the Manor & Castle Green Estate Company. The proposed initial members of the company are Groundwork Sheffield, Sheffield Wildlife Trust and the City Council.

2.10 A Business Plan has been drawn up by the partnership, which is attached to this report.

3.0 The Task 3.1 Although the waterways have seen huge physical improvements over the last 20 years, the achievement has been slow and opportunistic. Responsibilities for rivers are diffuse and uncoordinated. As a result maintenance is still at best patchy and is now a subject of frequent public criticism. The main issues are :

Large amounts of refuse , Unmanaged tree growth Invasive species Discarded needles Fly-tipped commercial waste Structural repair of historic waterpower structures Vandalism and wear and tear Normal cleansing/landscape services

3.2 These problems are exacerbated by the lack of any clear overall responsibility for the river and its banks.  Formal Council responsibility is limited to the adopted sections of highway, mainly cycle footway and adjoining green space and is currently divided between Streetforce (Highway Maintenance and Cleansing), Public Rights of Way and Parks and Countryside.  The Environment Agency has responsibility for flood protection and pollution, but will not deal with invasive species, visually offensive rubbish or bank management.  British Waterways own and are responsible for the fabric of the Canal only

2  Otherwise all riparian owners have responsibility for their own banks and usually up to the mid-point of the channel, but rarely take any active part in management even when they own a major section.. The Council also has responsibility for some parts of the river itself where it is the owner of the bank (eg Nursery St or Kelham Island Museum).

3.3 With the ever increasing accessibility and prominence of the rivers and canal in Sheffield’s regeneration it is becoming urgent to put in place sustainable maintenance arrangements to at least a similar standard to those applied to other public spaces.

4.0 Existing Resources 4.1 There are actually already on paper a significant number of agencies contributing or available for instance:

 Parks and Countryside  Streetforce Highways and Cleansing

 Public Rights of Way Unit  Environment Agency  City Centre Ambassadors  Environment and Regulatory Services  British Waterways  The Wildlife Trust  Volunteers from the FWW Trust, Pedal Pushers, Wildlife Trust, Adsetts Project and Trans Pennine Trail

4.2 This range of activity is almost impossible to fully cost, but it is reasonable to assume that there could be significant savings and efficiencies for all the agencies by combining some of the basic regular activities in the work of a small focussed team of dedicated, multi-tasking stewards. Others, like structural repairs, are likely to remain outside the scope of the project.

5.0 The Proposal 5.1 It is proposed to set up a pilot stewardship scheme on a not for profit basis with considerable community engagement covering the River Don from Rutland Road Bridge to the . Funding is already in place for at least two years to set up, equip and employ two stewards and a part-time Business Development Manager. The aim, set out in the Business Plan Forecast, is to build a customer base from riverside businesses who would pay an annual service charge for maintenance of their river banks and if required, involvement of their workforce in volunteering and team building activities. The income projection starts with a target of £2,000 in Year 1 rising to £50,000 in Year 4. So far the response from the private sector is well ahead of this target.

5.2 To meet the requirements of the public funders – in particular the EU’s Intereg Programme, and to meet the urgent need for better management after the June floods, the first two stewards were appointed on a limited two year contract in September 2007. The establishment of the Stewardship Company is designed to

3 support a long-term business plan and income stream from service contracts with riparian businesses.

5.3 . From the first six months’ experience it has been demonstrated that a team of two stewards can manage the pilot area, supported initially by a part time development worker plus appropriate equipment (tools, vehicle and a workboat with a small mess facility, garage and store on the river). Their principal activities are:

 Daily routine patrols to address small scale litter and regulatory issues  Co-ordinating with the planned work of specialist agencies to maximise efficiency  Organising volunteers, corporate training events, schools etc to both contribute to river management and generate income  Providing an element of interpretation and educational input,  Occasional events such as boating, walks, clean-ups  Calling on specialist services as required for heavy tree or waste removal, car salvage, pollution incidents etc

5.4 The two stewards are based in and managed by the Council’s Park Ranger Service, with Groundwork providing promotion, outreach and interface with the private sector through a part-time post and the Wildlife Trust monitoring bio-diversity and providing advice on habitat protection and improvement, subject to separate funding. These activities are drawn together through the new River Stewardship Company.

5.5 The estimated cost of the basic two steward operation plus overheads is £196,000 for the first two years (2007/8 and 2008/9) – see attached Business Plan Forecast for full breakdown.

5.6 It is proposed that an initial target for the project would be to attain Green Flag status for the Riverside walk within three years. This could be a first for Sheffield as there are no urban river corridors in the UK qualifying for this accolade at present.

6.0 The Pros and Cons of the Company Route and Risk Assessment

6.1 There are a number of reasons for adopting the Company approach for this purpose. a) it allows the complementary contributions and skills of the partners – the Council, Wildlife Trust and Groundwork to be combined in a format where each has an equal stake b) it creates a distinct, recognisable image for the new service, making it clear that this is not part of the Council or any other agency’s normal duties c) it allows the service access to a wider range of income and funding sources d) it packages the three partners’ services in a customer friendly way

6.2 Disadvantages of the Company approach are: a) as with all commercial enterprises there is a potential for financial failure b) this will be a small enterprise which still has to comply with all necessary obligations of a company

4 c) the partnership approach means the Council must work within the constraints of the other two partners

6.3 On balance these disadvantages are believed to be out-weighed by the advantages. However the following risks have been assessed :

i) Company fails to attract sufficient private income from Service provision. (Medium) Response: initial market scoping has indicated a strong interest from companies approached and income projections for Year 1 should be easily exceeded. The company also has two years of set-up funding before it becomes mainly dependent on commercial income ii) Overheads too heavy for a small business (Medium) Response: locating the Stewards within the Park Ranger Service will achieve certain economies of scale though use of existing support arrangements, e.g. training and health and safety provision. iii) Differences could emerge between partners represented on the Company Board (Medium) Response: a considerable amount of work has been carried out already in the partnership to ensure that the Founder Members share similar expectations and objectives.

7.0 Funding Funding arrangements and assumptions are set out in full in the attached Business Plan Forecast but are as follows:  The South Yorkshire Forest has allocated £80,000 from the European Intereg 3 Programme ‘Creating a Setting for Development’ towards the establishment and the first two years of a sustainable River Steward regime in areas of new development with an emphasis on the involvement of local business and developers. This funding is confirmed.  Groundwork Sheffield has secured £75,000 from the South Yorkshire Key Fund part grant (£20,000) and part loan/equity (£55,000) to cover the set-up costs of the scheme.  The Environment Agency has committed £15,000 pa to the Sheffield stewardship project for at least five years from 2006 to 2011.  From initial approaches businesses located along the riverside, especially those which are image or environment conscious, have been receptive to the new service and a number have already agreed to subscribe.  It is currently assumed in the Business Plan that riverside business subscription to the project will start at a low level of £2,000 pa, building up to potentially £50,000 pa by year 4. Additional income from training/employee development events could add £3,000 pa rising to £9,000 pa.  As the City Council is a substantial riparian owner itself both as Highway Authority and owner of open spaces, that it will in time be approached to take up a service level agreement with the company (subject to compliance with the Council’s procurement requirements).  The Business Plan allows for a modest surplus which can be used for the possible appointment of an additional steward if demand requires it.

5 The funding matrix for the whole project (not just the Company) can be summarised as follows.

Income 2006/8 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 Total Intereg 3 60,000 20,000 80,000 SY Key Fund Grant 20,000 20,000 SY Key Fund Loan 55,000 55,000 Environment Agency 30,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 75,000 SCC contract (estimate) 20,000 20,000 40,000 Groundwork Sheffield 30,000 30,000 30,000 90,000 Income from contracts 2,000 43,000 53,400 60,200 158,600 Bank Interest 2,450 1,750 1,400 5,600 NB 2006/8 funding precedes Company establishment Total 167,000 110,450 120,150 126,600 524,200

Loan Repayment 11,000 11,000 11,000 33,000 Expenditure 95,075 107,101 109,961 116,646 428,783 461,783

8.0 Financial Implications 8.1 In the first two years of operation there is no direct financial implication for DEL or the City Council other than some in-kind costs of line management and administration of the two stewards by the Ranger Service, which will be reimbursed from the project. The set-up costs and initial revenue costs are covered by the Intereg, Key Fund, Environment Agency and private sector contributions. Indeed there could be some modest savings on the P&C and Cleansing budgets as the Stewards deliver a more co-ordinated approach.

8.2 The Business Plan projects a significant growth of private sector income in the form of an annual service charge, rising from £2,000 in year 1 to £60,000 in year 4.

8.3 However even allowing for this growth in private sector contributions it would seem reasonable that the Council should commit to a contribution in the longer term as a riparian land owner itself, , particularly matching the EA’s contribution of £15,000 pa. It is therefore assumed in the Business Plan that this contribution would be starting in Year 3 (2009/10).

8.4 Some of this will be found from resources already allocated to the river – e.g. the landscape maintenance costs for the Five Weirs Walk – estimated at £5,000 /annum, but some additional revenue from the DEL Budget is expected to be required from year 3, estimated at an additional £20,000 pa to be adjusted from time to time for inflation.

9.0 Environmental Implications 9.1 The project contributes directly to the Council objectives of ‘Cleaner, Greener, Safer’ and will complement the efforts of staff in Parks and Woodlands, Environmental and Regulatory, Planning and City Development to enhance and better manage the City’s open spaces and walking/cycling network.

6 10.0 Equalities 10.1 The new steward service will impact on the local amenity of a number of deprived areas such as Netherthorpe, Burngreave, Wincobank, Tinsley and Darnall which are home to large ethnic minorities. The regular presence of the Stewards will also improve the experience and perception of safety and security for all users but especially women, elderly and disabled people.

10.2 An Equality Impact Assessment will accompany the report.

11.0 Legal Implications

11.1 For the reasons set out above it is proposed to establish a company limited by guarantee, with the founder members being the City Council, Groundwork Sheffield and Sheffield Wildlife Trust. These founder members would have powers to nominate individuals to the Company’s Board of Directors. There would also be powers for the Board to co-opt additional directors. Further members might be admitted in the future. The Environment Agency would, at its request, be permitted to send an observer to Board meetings.

11.2 It is proposed that agreeing the details of the Company’s constitutional arrangements, and the Council’s contractual and/or operational relationships with the Company and its members should be delegated to the Executive Director, DEL in consultation with the Assistant Chief Executive, Legal and Governance and the Deputy Director of Finance.

11.3 It is proposed that deciding whom the Council should appoint to the Board of Directors of the Company should be delegated to the Executive Director, DEL in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration and Planning, provided that the appointment of an elected member would require the approval of the full Council.

11.4 It is proposed that the river stewards will remain in Council employment and be line managed by Council officers. They would, however, perform work on behalf of the Company, to enable the Company to discharge its contractual obligations to its customers. This could either be achieved by a secondment arrangement or a sub-contract. The precise details are currently being developed, and appropriate agreements would be concluded between the Council and the Company.

11.5 The work of the Company will promote not only the environmental, but also the economic and social well-being of a part of Sheffield. The Council’s involvement in and provision of support for the company would therefore be permitted by the well-being powers contained in Section 2, Local Government Act 2000. The employment costs (including allowances for overheads and management costs) of the stewards would be recovered from the Company pursuant to the charging powers in Section 93, Local Government Act 2003.

11.6 In exercising the Section 2 and Section 93 powers regard has to be had to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. In the preparation of this

7 report the issued guidance has been considered and the current proposals are not at variance with this.

11.7 Additionally, prior to use of the Section 2 powers regard has to be had to the Council’s Community Strategy (“The Sheffield City Strategy”) prepared pursuant to Section 4 of the Act. The proposals in this report are in keeping with the City Strategy (see 2.6 above).

12.0 Recommendations

Cabinet is recommended to:-

12.1 confirm its support for the establishing of the River Stewardship Company, with the Council as a founder member, and its belief that the activities described in this report are likely to promote and improve the environmental, economic and social well-being of Sheffield;

12.2 delegate authority to the Executive Director, DEL to:-

12.2.1 agree, in consultation with the Assistant Chief Executive, Legal and Governance and the Deputy Director of Finance, the details of the Company’s constitutional arrangements, and the Council’s contractual, financial and/or operational relationships with the Company and its members including making any arrangements and agreeing the terms and authorising completion of any agreements that he considers necessary or conducive to the effective establishing or operation of the Company;

12.2.2 decide, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Economic Regeneration and Planning, whom the Council should from time to time appoint to the Board of Directors of the Company, subject to any proposal to appoint an elected member requiring the approval of the full Council;

12.2.3 exercise (subject to 12.2.2) the Council’s rights as a member of the Company, including the giving of any consents which may be required from the Council in its capacity as a member of the Company;

12.3 Request that a further report is brought to Cabinet in twelve months reporting on the progress of the pilot and the level of private sector income achieved.

John Mothersole Executive Director, Development, Environment and Leisure

8