ARDS AND NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL

8 January 2018

Dear Sir/Madam

You are hereby invited to attend a meeting of the Community and Wellbeing Committee of the Ards and North Down Borough Council which will be held in the Council Chamber, 2 Church Street, Newtownards on Wednesday 17th January 2018 commencing at 7.00 pm.

Tea, coffee and sandwiches will be available from 6.00 pm.

Yours faithfully

Stephen Reid Chief Executive Ards and North Down Borough Council

A G E N D A

1. Apologies

2. Declarations of Interest

3. Consultation Documents

3.1 Changes to the Affordable Warmth Scheme - Comments to be submitted no later than 16 February 2018 (Report attached)

3.2 Review on Social Housing Allocations (Report attached)

4. Community & Wellbeing Budgetary Control Report November 2017 (Report attached)

5. Ards and North Down Sports Forum Grants (Report attached)

6. Mary Peters Trust (Report attached)

7. Peace IV Minutes (Report attached)

8. Summer Scheme Review (Report attached)

9. Royal Wedding Fund (Report attached)

10. Community Festival Fund 2018/19 (Report attached)

11. Holywood Sport Pitches Update (Report attached)

12. Sports Development Every Body Active 2020 Small Grants Programme (Report attached)

13. Commonwealth Games Participants (Report attached)

14. Good Relations Schools Visit to France and Belgium 2018 (Report attached)

***ITEMS ** IN CONFIDENCE***

15. Aurora Facility Issues Update (Report attached)

16. Any Other Notified Business

MEMBERSHIP OF COMMUNITY AND WELLBEING COMMITTEE (18 MEMBERS)

Alderman Irvine Councillor Edmund Alderman Smith Councillor Kennedy Councillor Adair Councillor Martin Councillor Boyle Councillor McAlpine Councillor Brooks (Chairman) Councillor Menagh Councillor Chambers Councillor Muir Councillor Cooper Councillor Smart Councillor Douglas (Vice-Chairman) Councillor Thompson Councillor Dunne Councillor Woods

2

Unclassified

ITEM 3.1

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Community and Wellbeing

Date of Meeting 17 January 2018

Responsible Director Director of Community and Wellbeing

Responsible Head of Head of Environmental Health Protection and Service Development.

Date of Report 18 December 2017

File Reference CW8

Legislation N/A

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:

Subject Changes to the Affordable Warmth Scheme, Public Consulation

Attachments Changes to the Affordable Warmth Scheme, Public Consulation, November 2017 Proposed response

The Department for Communities (DfC) is seeking comments on proposed changes to the Affordable Warmth Scheme, which include changes to the eligibility criteria.

In the current Scheme, householders are eligible if they own their own home and occupy it as their sole or main residence, or rent from a Private Sector landlord, and have a total gross annual income of less than £20,000. The Department is proposing to raise the income threshold to £23,000 for households with more than one person and reducing it to £18,000 for all single person households.

When calculating household income, Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance, Personal Independence Payment and Carer’s Allowance are currently included, however the Department is proposing to remove these benefits from the calculation.

For the boiler replacement option, there must be a boiler which is at least 15 years old and a member of the household must be over 65 or have a child under 16 years of age or receive Disability Living Allowance. The Department is proposing to

Page 1 of 2

Unclassified remove the age-related and disability-related criteria from this element of the scheme.

The Department also proposes that one installer, managing the installation of all measures to the household, becomes the preferred delivery method.

The Affordable Warmth team has prepared a response to the Department’s Consultation and this is attached.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council responds to the consultation in accordance with the attached completed template.

Page 2 of 2

Changes to the Affordable Warmth Scheme

Annex A – Your responses to the Consultation

Name: Marcus Potts

Organisation: Ards and North Down Borough Council

Position in the organisation: Head of Environmental Health, Protection & Development

Proposal 1

The Department proposes that one installer, managing the installation of all measures to the household, becomes the preferred delivery method.

How much do you agree with this proposal? (please tick one option)

Strongly agree Agree Don’t know Disagree Strongly disagree



Comments?

Ards and North Down Borough Council believes that one installer may simplify the process for householders, Building Control and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) however it may not provide best value for money.

14

Proposal 2

The Department proposes to raise the income threshold to £23,000 for households with more than one person and reducing it to £18,000 for all single person households.

How much do you agree with this proposal? (please tick one option)

Strongly agree Agree Don’t know Disagree Strongly disagree



Comments?

Implementation of this proposal will make the Affordable Warmth Scheme more equitable for low income households. The reduction of the income threshold to £18,000 for single person households is likely to be offset by the exclusion of income allowances as detailed in proposal 3, from the income calculation.

Proposal 3

The Department proposes that Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance, Personal Independence Payment and Carer’s Allowance are removed from the calculation of income for the Affordable Warmth Scheme.

How much do you agree with this proposal? (please tick one option)

Strongly agree Agree Don’t know Disagree Strongly disagree



Comments?

Implementation of this proposal will bring the Affordable Warmth Scheme in line with other Government grant schemes and make it more equitable for low income households.

15 Changes to the Affordable Warmth Scheme

Proposal 4

The Department proposes the removal of age-related and disability-related eligibility criteria from the boiler replacement element of the Affordable Warmth Scheme.

How much do you agree with this proposal? (please tick one option)

Strongly agree Agree Don’t know Disagree Strongly disagree 

Comments?

Implementation of this proposal will make the Affordable Warmth Scheme more equitable for low income households.

Other Comments

Are there any additional comments or suggestions you wish to make on the proposals in the consultation document?

Comments?

Ards and North Down Borough Council welcomes the proposals to make the Affordable Warmth Scheme more accessible to those most in need. The changes proposed recognise the needs of multi-person households and bring the Scheme in line with other Government grants.

16

Unclassified

ITEM 3.2

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Community and Wellbeing

Date of Meeting 17 January 2018

Responsible Director Director of Community and Wellbeing

Responsible Head of Head of Community and Culture Service

Date of Report 02 January 2018

File Reference CW111

Legislation Housing Northern Ireland Order 1981

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:

Subject Review on Social Housing Allocations

Attachments 1. Proposed Response 2. Consultation Document

A fundamental review of social housing allocations policy was launched in 2013 by the Department for Communities and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. Research was commissioned from the Universities of Ulster and Cambridge to provide an entirely independent analysis of the current system and recommendations for change. The findings were presented for public comment. This consultation paper now sets out this Department’s proposals to make the allocations process more fair, transparent and effective for all.

The Council agreed at its meeting in October to bring a report back to the Community & Wellbeing Committee on the consultation. Although the deadline for responses has now passed (21st December 2017) contact was made with the Department and it has confirmed that a response would be welcomed and considered if received before the end of January. In addition, the Department has already been advised in writing of the outcome of the notice of motion relating to housing points and implementation of the military covenant debated at the December Council meeting, which relates to this consultation.

Page 1 of 2

Unclassified

The Permanent Secretary in the consultation document has commented that a good allocations system cannot deliver more social homes, but it can ensure that best use of existing resources, including the new social homes that are delivered each year under the Social Housing Development Programme. He further stresses the need to build on the strengths of the current allocations scheme, to enable it to work better for people in need.

The proposals, taken together, are intended to produce five key outcomes:

1. A greater range of solutions to meet housing need. 2. An improved system for the most vulnerable applicants. 3. A more accurate waiting list that reflects current housing circumstances. 4. Those in greatest housing need receive priority, with recognition of their time in need. 5. Better use of public resources by ensuring the waiting list moves smoothly.

A detailed description of the proposals is included in an attachment to this report. A series of questions are then posed which consultees are invited to answer in response. Each question is numerically aligned to the proposals made.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Council submits the response attached.

Page 2 of 2

Attachment 1. Proposed Response Scheme

A Fundament 1. An independent, tenure-neutral housing advice service for Northern Ireland. • People should receive high-quality, tailored, tenure-neutral advice in a way which respects their dignity and confidentiality.

Strongly Agree. Individual and family needs vary, and housing should be matched as much as possible and where practical to personal needs.

2. An applicant who has been involved in unacceptable behaviour should not be eligible for social housing or Full Duty homelessness status unless there is reason to believe – at the time the application is considered – that the unacceptable behaviour is likely to cease. • There should be a focus on good housing management, sustainable tenancies and a deterrent against serious anti-social behaviour

Strongly agree. Antisocial behaviour of individual tenants can be the cause of much distress for neighbours and sometimes the wider community. It is important that this stressor is not introduced where knowledge of the likelihood of occurrence exists. Those causing it should demonstrate a willingness and evidence of conformance before they are offered housing.

3. NIHE may treat a person as ineligible for Full Duty homelessness status on the basis of their unacceptable behaviour at any time before allocating that person a social home. • This proposal should also ensure good housing management and aim to reduce nuisance to tenants; striking a better balance between excluding people from the waiting list and prioritising vulnerable groups.

Agree. The Council agrees that an applicant can be found to be ineligible if there is evidence of unacceptable behaviour if after the homelessness application has been accepted. However, a risk of a one off instance of reverting to unacceptable behaviour should be considered and if appropriate a warning given in appropriate circumstances and not determine ineligibility immediately in all cases.

4. NIHE can meet their duty to homeless applicants on a tenure-neutral basis, provided that the accommodation meets certain conditions • This proposal should ensure a greater range of ways in which the NIHE can meet its duty to homeless applicants and increase the options for meeting applicants’ housing need.

Agree. There are a significant number of people who have been on the housing waiting list for a significant period of time, and more use should be made of the private rented sector in order to help address this concern. Additional social housing provision through new build and brown building conversions should also be accelerated to meet this need further.

A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations 5. A greater choice of areas for all applicants for a social home. • All applicants should be able to choose as many (or as few) housing areas as they wish to maximise the likelihood of receiving an offer of a home they can accept.

Agree. However, the choice of where to prioritise in such a longer list should rest with the applicant.

6. Greater use of a mutual exchange service. • Existing social tenants looking for a transfer should ordinarily also be considered for a mutual exchange service.

Agree. The ‘homeswapping’ scheme should be better promoted and will potentially allow tenants to occupy a property that meets their needs better and in a more efficient way than applying to the waiting list. The Council agrees with the benefits identified by the UU which better utilisation of this scheme would bring

7. The removal of intimidation points from the Selection Scheme • This would not affect the urgent help for those experiencing intimidation. Where a person is in danger the NIHE would remove them from that danger and offer alternative accommodation on an emergency basis. • This should recognise the housing need of intimidated households in a fairer and more proportionate way.

Agree, on the condition that this proposed change would not affect the current practice regarding urgent treatment of those experiencing intimidation. Where a person is considered to be in serious and imminent danger the NIHE should remove them from that danger and offer alternative accommodation on an emergency basis. After this, by continuing to award homelessness points and primary social needs points, this proposal should continue to reflect the high priority of intimidation. However, the proposal ends the over-riding priority (i.e. 200 points) that intimidation currently takes over similarly serious and enduring circumstances.

8. Points should reflect current circumstances for all applicants. • This should make the scheme fairer and more transparent to applicants as they know they will be assessed on their current circumstances. It should also maintain a focus on prioritising current housing needs.

Strongly agree. The points awarded should be current in relation to all contemporary circumstances in order to ensure fairness and an award of points based on actual need at the time of assessment or reassessment. A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

9. The removal of Interim Accommodation points from the Selection Scheme This proposal aims to: • Provide more equal treatment of applicants in similar circumstances; • Ensure a more accurate waiting list that reflects current housing circumstances; and • Ensure those in greatest need receive priority.

Strongly Agree in that this would result in a more accurate waiting list that reflects current housing circumstances and those in greatest housing need would receive priority, with recognition of their time in need, irrespective if they have secured a temporary location in the meantime.

10. The Selection Scheme should place applicants into bands based on similar levels of need to meet longstanding housing need more effectively • Applicants should be assessed and points awarded, just as they are in the Selection Scheme at present. The points should then be used to place applicants in bands, alongside others with similar levels of need. Agree. If placed in an appropriate band, then it is only fair that those which have being waiting the longest receive an offer of accommodation compared to those in the same band who have been waiting for a short period of time. Some level of banding is required for waiting times, in that decisions should not be made based on a family for example who has identical points but receives an offer of accommodation because they have been on the waiting list for only a day or two more than the next eligible recipient.

11. The Selection Scheme Rules should always align the number of bedrooms a household is assessed to need with the size criteria for eligible Housing Benefit customers. • Aligning the Selection Scheme with Housing Benefit should ensure a consistent approach, avoid confusion for applicants and enable good housing management. Q1. Do you agree? Any other comments?

Agree

12 For difficult-to-let properties: Social landlords should be able to make multiple offers to as many applicants as they think necessary. • The number of applicants contacted should be the number the landlord thinks is most likely to secure an allocation.

A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations 13. For difficult-to-let properties: Social landlords should be able to use choice-based letting. • Landlords must ensure that enough support is given to applicants to enable them to express an interest.

14. For difficult-to-let properties: Social landlords should be able to go direct to multiple offers if they have evidence that a property will be difficult to let. • Such evidence would mainly come from previous similar properties being difficult to let.

Questions 12 to 14 are answered as Agree, on the basis that landlords are most aware of how best to ensure that a difficult to let property can be occupied, by those in greatest in need who wish to occupy it, and thus reduce waiting times.

15. An applicant may receive two reasonable offers of accommodation. • This proposal reduces the number of offers of accommodation from 3 to 2. • If the two offers are refused, no further offers will be made for one year after the date of the last refusal.

Strongly Agree. Evidence suggests that where three offers are made, 94% will accept accommodation, with 82% accepting the first or second offer. If only two offers were made, the % accepting after the first or second offer is likely to increase so long as the property is within the area of choice. This will also speed up the uptake of offers as the number of refusals will reduce.

16 Social landlords may withdraw an offer of accommodation in specified circumstances. • This change is required to deal with a very specific, limited number of circumstances.

Agree but in limited circumstances, and critically must be approved by the housing authority, ie with a robust challenge by the authority carried out before a withdrawal is allowed.

17. Social landlords may withhold consent for a policy succession or assignment to a general needs social home in limited circumstances where there is evidence an applicant needs it. • There should be a focus on good housing management and better use of public resources by enabling social landlords to make more effective use of general needs stock.

Agree

18. Social landlords may withhold consent for a policy succession or assignment of adapted accommodation or purpose built wheelchair standard accommodation where there is evidence an applicant needs it. • This proposal should ensure that the most effective use is made of existing adapted stock, and that waiting times for applicants requiring adapted accommodation are reduced.

Agree that adapted homes should in the first instance be offered to those who require the adaptations. However, where there is no immediate need and a family is in dire need for accommodation and has been for a considerable period of time, a mechanism should exist to assess the possibility of the family temporarily occupying an adapted home until it is required by a person with the needs facilitated by the adaptations.

19. Updating the Selection Scheme to bring it in line with developments in Public Protection Arrangements Northern Ireland. • The NIHE requested this change to bring the Selection Scheme in line with recent developments in legislation to enable social landlords to make restrictions to applicants (or a member of their household) who have been convicted or charged with a violent offence.

Agree that alignment with such parallel legislation is appropriate.

20. Specialised properties should be allocated by a separate process outside the Selection Scheme. • Specialised accommodation should go to those who need it most. A review should be established to put a more effective allocation process in place for applicants needing specialised property such as sheltered dwellings / wheelchair standard accommodation

Agree

Further comments.

In December 2017, Ards and North Down Borough Council also agreed to the following which is relevant to this consultation and in addition to the above.

“That this Council believes that the Military Covenant should be implemented in full in Northern Ireland particularly in respect of the allocation of priority points for housing and relocation”

A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Consultation on Proposals A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

2 Contents

A FUNDAMENTAL REVIEW OF SOCIAL HOUSING ALLOCATIONS POLICY...... 9 Background...... 9 Views on the current Housing Selection Scheme...... 11 Equality Considerations...... 12 How to respond ...... 13

Principles ...... 14 Outcomes ...... 14 Our Proposals to amend the Housing Selection Scheme ...... 15

THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS...... 22 Proposal 1: - An independent, tenure-neutral housing advice service for Northern Ireland...... 23 Universal access to social housing...... 27 A note on Armed Forces applicants...... 28

Proposals 2 & 3: - Changes to eligibility for applicants who have been involved in unacceptable behaviour...... 29 Proposal 4: - NIHE can meet their duty to homeless applicants on a tenure-neutral basis, provided that the accommodation meets certain conditions...... 34

APPLICATION STAGE PROPOSALS...... 38 Proposal 5: - A greater choice of areas for all applicants for a social home...... 39 Proposal 6: - Greater use of a mutual exchange service...... 43

ASSESSMENT STAGE PROPOSALS...... 45 Proposal 7: -The removal of intimidation points from the Housing Selection Scheme...... 50 Proposal 8: - Points should reflect current circumstances for all applicants...... 63

3 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Proposal 9 - The Removal of interim accommodation points from the Housing Selection Scheme...... 66 Other points within the Housing Selection Scheme should remain unchanged...... 71 Unsuitable accommodation points...... 71

ALLOCATION STAGE PROPOSALS...... 72 Proposal 10:- The Housing Selection Scheme should place applicants into bands based on similar levels of need to meet long standing housing need more effectively...... 75 Proposal 11: - The Housing Selection Scheme rules should always align the number of bedrooms a household is assessed to need with the size criteria for eligible

Housing Benefit customers...... 85 Proposals 12-14: - For difficult-to-let properties: social landlords should have a wider range of options when making an allocation...... 91

Proposal 15: - An applicant may receive two reasonable offers of accommodation...... 97 Proposal 16: -Social landlords may withdraw an offer of accommodation in specified circumstances...... 100 Proposals 17 & 18: – Circumstances where social landlords may withhold consent for a policy succession or assignment to a social home...... 103 Proposal 19: - Updating the Housing Selection Scheme to bring it in line with developments in Public Protection Arrangements Northern Ireland...... 108 Proposal 20: - Specialised properties should be allocated by a separate process outside the Housing Selection Scheme...... 111

IMPACT ASSESSMENTS...... 115 Equality...... 115 Equality impact assessment...... 116 Other impact assessments ...... 119

NEXT STEPS...... 120

4 CONSULTATION QUESTIONS...... 121

SOURCES...... 132

ANNEX A: Continuous Tenant Omnibus Survey results...... 133

ANNEX B: A note on the key findings of the NIHE’s 2015 modelling exercise...... 147 ANNEX C: Detailed results of the NIHE’s 2015 modelling exercise for banding...... 149 Banding – Urban Area (high demand)...... 150 Banding – Urban Area (low demand)...... 153 Banding – Urban Area (with rural hinterland)...... 156

ANNEX D: NIHE’s report - Modelling exercise to estimate effects of potential changes to current Housing Selection Scheme...... 157

ANNEX E: Draft implementation timescales...... 175

5 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

6 Foreword

A good allocations system cannot deliver more social homes, but it can ensure that we make the best use of our existing resources, including the new social homes that are delivered each year under the Social Housing Development Programme. We need to build on the strengths of our current allocations scheme, to enable it to work better for people in need. Social housing in Northern Ireland is a success story. However, we cannot be THE PROPOSALS ARE INTENDED TO complacent when we have over 37,500 PRODUCE FIVE KEY OUTCOMES: households on the social housing waiting 1. A greater range of solutions to meet list and over half of these are in housing housing need; stress. Building new homes is only part of the answer; we need to make sure the current 2. An improved system for the most system works as effectively as possible. vulnerable applicants;

3. A more accurate waiting list that reflects This fundamental review of social housing current housing circumstances; allocations policy was launched in 2013. 4. Those in greatest housing need receive Research was commissioned from the priority, with recognition of their time in Universities of Ulster and Cambridge to need; and provide an entirely independent analysis of the current system and recommendations 5. Better use of public resources by for change. The findings were presented for ensuring the list moves smoothly. public comment. This consultation paper now Meeting housing need is the main priority. sets out this Department’s proposals to make New social homes are of course needed, but the allocations process more fair, transparent the measures proposed in this document and effective for all. would give applicants more choice and help the waiting list move more effectively. I look forward to hearing your views.

LEO O’REILLY PERMANENT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES

7 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

8 A fundamental review of social housing allocations policy

Background

WHAT IS SOCIAL HOUSING ALLOCATIONS used too. Before 2000 each Housing POLICY? Association had its own scheme. The If you want to rent a home from the NIHE looked at the Selection Scheme in Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) 2011 and suggested some changes to or a Housing Association you apply to the the Department for Communities (the NIHE. The NIHE has to have a scheme to Department). The Department decided decide which people get which homes there was an opportunity to look at when they become available. The scheme allocations of social housing in a more is made up of rules to make sure everyone fundamental way. is treated fairly when they want to rent a social home. Housing Associations in REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES Northern Ireland have agreed to use the The NIHE must have an allocations scheme same scheme as the NIHE. It is referred to which is approved by the Department. as the Housing Selection Scheme or the The Department has led this review, Common Selection Scheme. In the rest with input from the NIHE. The NIHE has of this document we call it the Selection also carried out research on some of the Scheme. When the social landlord finds proposals. The Department has consulted a tenant for a home they ‘allocate’ the with other stakeholders, including Housing home or ‘make an allocation’. This review Associations, about the proposals as they of allocations policy is to decide if changes developed. to the rules of the Selection Scheme are necessary. THE REVIEW SO FAR

WHY A REVIEW? Ulster University and the University of Cambridge examined how the The Selection Scheme has not changed Selection Scheme works and what much since November 2000. The scheme happens in England, Scotland, Wales introduced in 2000 was the first common and the Republic of Ireland. They wrote Housing Selection Scheme in Northern independent academic reports about this Ireland which Housing Associations and recommended changes to the Selection

9 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Scheme. You can view these reports online at for a very long time. It also showed that www.communities-ni.gov.uk/publications/ the two changes would assist applicants fundamental-review-social-housing- who had waited a long time in high housing allocations-policy need to get an allocation more quickly.

The Department asked people what they The second research exercise (a survey) was thought about the recommendations. You a series of questions on allocations asked to can view a summary of what was said NIHE tenants (see Annex A) through NIHE’s about the proposals online at: Continuous Tenant Omnibus Survey Wave 2: April to June 2015. The sample was made www.communities-ni.gov.uk/topics/ up of 100 new tenants who gave their views housing/social-housing-allocations- on the length of time waiting and the areas research of choice available to them.

The Department then carried out desk The survey found that most people had research on allocations policies in England waited less than a year to be allocated a and Scotland. You can find a summary of social home: 29% had waited less than our findings on the Department’s website: 6 months for a home, 41% had waited www.communities-ni.gov.uk/allocations- between 6 months and 1 year, 22% between review 1 and 5 years, and 5% had waited more than 5 years. 3% did not know or could not We also commissioned two pieces of recall. research from the NIHE to test some of our emerging proposals: Regarding how long they expected to wait, 44% said that their length of time waiting The first research exercise modelling( ) used was shorter (or much shorter) than they actual waiting list data and applicants to expected, while 29% said it was longer, or model what might happen if we changed much longer. the Selection Scheme in two ways:

• if homes were allocated to the applicant A clear majority of those surveyed (67%) in greatest need who has waited longest agreed that an applicant who had spent (via a banding system); and longer on the waiting list should get priority • the effect of removing intimidation points over other applicants with similar needs. from the Selection Scheme. The results of the modelling and the survey The modelling showed that, in some cases, will be referred to in greater detail under applicants had been on the waiting list with the relevant proposals in this document. very high levels of need (over 100 points), A note on the key findings of NIHE’s

10 2015 modelling exercise can be found in www.communities-ni.gov.uk/allocations- Annex B, detailed results of the NIHE 2015 review modelling exercise for banding in Annex C and NIHE’s full report in Annex D. The Department has worked with NIHE to include some changes NIHE expect should We commissioned a third piece of improve the Selection Scheme. Some are evidence-gathering from Analytical Services measures which they consulted on in 2011; Unit within the Department. This used others have arisen from their experience waiting list and allocations data to show of running the Selection Scheme and a variations in waiting times. The results of review of how it works from a customer this exercise have informed the proposal perspective. to give more priority to time waiting for a home. More information is available at:

Views on the current Selection Scheme

WHAT PEOPLE VALUE ABOUT THE e.g. victims of domestic abuse. CURRENT SELECTION SCHEME • High numbers of refusals are inconvenient The responses to the recommendations for the applicant and inefficient for the made in the independent academic reports landlord: the Selection Scheme should show that people: more accurately capture where an • Value universal access to the Selection applicant is prepared to live. Scheme. • The Selection Scheme should more • Broadly support the use of points to accurately capture applicants’ housing measure an applicant’s circumstances. needs. • Agree that allocations should prioritise • Some people have been waiting on the list the applicant in greatest need. for a considerable time, often with a very high level of points. As at March 2017, there were 3,400 Full Duty Applicants (statutorily CONCERNS ABOUT THE CURRENT homeless households) who have been on SELECTION SCHEME the waiting list for over 5 years. There are concerns that: • Some applicants raised concerns • Applicants with intimidation points around a lack of privacy, and therefore are given too much priority over other confidentiality, when making an applicants who have received threats of application for a social home. violence or have experienced violence,

11 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Equality considerations

As part of this review the Department www.communities-ni.gov.uk/allocations- carried out equality screening, a draft review Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA), Social Inclusion Impact Assessment and a Rural We have published the draft EQIA for Needs Impact Assessment on the proposals consultation alongside this document. in this document. These documents are published at:

Next steps of the review

We used the independent recommendations, A table showing draft implementation public responses, evidence from the NIHE timescales should the proposals be modelling and further desk research to adopted following the consultation process evidence the following set of proposals can be seen at Annex E. for consultation. HOW MIGHT THIS AFFECT ME? The Department welcomes responses Changes to the system will affect future to this consultation document which we applicants to the Selection Scheme. Some will use to inform the final proposals for changes will also affect current applicants. implementation. We will publish a summary Transitional measures will be considered of your views on this consultation along with in light of responses received to the the Department’s final proposals. consultation.

12 How to respond

There are three ways you can tell us what WRITE TO US AT: you think about our proposals. Social Housing Policy Team Department for Communities RESPOND ONLINE AT: Level 3, Causeway Exchange www.communities-ni.gov.uk/allocations- 1-7 Bedford Street review Belfast BT2 7EG EMAIL US AT: [email protected] Please have all responses with us by Thursday 21 December 2017.

13 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Principles

WE BELIEVE THE SELECTION SCHEME SHOULD BE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES:

FAIRNESS Be open to all and promote equality and good relations.

TRANSPARENCY Be easy to understand and easily available.

EFFECTIVENESS Work effectively so applicants in the greatest need have their housing needs met.

Outcomes

Our proposals, taken together, are intended 4. Those in greatest housing need receive to produce five key outcomes: priority, with recognition of their time 1. A greater range of solutions to meet in need. housing need. 5. Better use of public resources by ensuring 2. An improved system for the most the waiting list moves smoothly. vulnerable applicants. 3. A more accurate waiting list that reflects As we present this series of proposals for current housing circumstances. change, we will highlight which outcomes the proposals aim to meet.

14 Our proposals to amend the Selection Scheme

This document presents a significant number of proposals for change. To make this document easier to read, we have grouped the proposals together into stages. The first stage (‘Throughout the process’) covers the proposals that may be relevant throughout the entire process of: applying for a social home; undertaking a housing need assessment; and allocation of a home. The remaining stages take each of these in turn, i.e. application, assessment, and finally, allocation.

Depending on the outcome of this consultation, some or all of the proposals may be implemented.

Throughout the Process – At any stage from application to allocation Outcome of a social home

1. An independent, tenure-neutral housing advice service 1,2 for Northern Ireland. • People should receive high-quality, tailored, tenure-neutral advice in a way which respects their dignity and confidentiality. • This proposal should ensure a greater range of solutions to meet housing need and provide an improved system for the most vulnerable applicants. • This Ulster University recommendation was broadly supported by stakeholders. NIHE has recently adopted a Housing Solutions and Support approach.

15 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Throughout the Process – At any stage from application to allocation Outcome of a social home

2. An applicant who has been involved in unacceptable behaviour 1,5 should not be eligible for social housing or Full Duty homelessness status unless there is reason to believe – at the time the application is considered – that the unacceptable behaviour is likely to cease. • This proposal should ensure allocations focus on good housing management and sustainable tenancies. It should also be a deterrent against serious anti-social behaviour.

3. NIHE may treat a person as ineligible for Full Duty homelessness 1,5 status on the basis of their unacceptable behaviour at any time before allocating that person a social home. • This proposal should also ensure good housing management and aim to reduce nuisance to tenants; striking a better balance between excluding people from the waiting list and prioritising vulnerable groups.

4. NIHE can meet their duty to homeless applicants on a tenure- 1 neutral basis, provided that the accommodation meets certain conditions. • This proposal should ensure a greater range of ways in which the NIHE can meet its duty to homeless applicants and increase the options for meeting applicants’ housing need. • This proposal was welcomed in a 2010 consultation provided the Department regulated the private rented sector better. There have been many improvements in regulation since 2010

16 At Application Stage – How someone applies for a social home Outcome

5. A greater choice of areas for all applicants for a social home. 1,5 • All applicants should be able to choose as many (or as few) housing areas as they wish to maximise the likelihood of receiving an offer of a home they can accept. • This proposal should provide a greater range of solutions to meet housing need, a more accurate waiting list and minimise the time that stock is left empty. • The NIHE recommended this change after examining the current Selection Scheme. Research shows that a significant minority of applicants would prefer a greater choice of areas.

6. Greater use of a mutual exchange service. 1,5 • Existing social tenants looking for a transfer should ordinarily also be considered for a mutual exchange service. • This proposal promotes an alternative solution to meeting housing need and minimises the time that stock is left empty. • Ulster University recommended this change and it was well supported.

17 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

At Assessment Stage - How the Selection Scheme measures need Outcome

7. The removal of intimidation points from the Selection Scheme. 3

8. Points should reflect current circumstances for all applicants. 3

9. The removal of Interim Accommodation points from the 3,4 Selection Scheme. • These proposals aim to provide more equal treatment of applicants in similar circumstances. • They should ensure that there is a more accurate waiting list that reflects current housing circumstances and that those in greatest need receive priority. • The NIHE has requested these measures. The responses to its previous consultation on intimidation points and interim accommodation points suggest there is support for proposals 7 and 9. The NIHE has modelled the proposed removal of intimidation points.

18 At Allocation Stage - How homes are allocated Outcome

10. The Selection Scheme should place applicants into bands based 4 on similar levels of need to meet longstanding housing need more effectively. • Applicants should be assessed and points awarded, just as they are in the Selection Scheme at present. The points should then be used to place applicants in bands, alongside others with similar levels of need. • This proposal should ensure that those applicants in the greatest housing need receive priority, with recognition of their time in need. • Ulster University recommended a banded system. The NIHE has modelled the effects of a hybrid system of points and bands, which indicates that this approach can meet longstanding housing need more effectively than the current Selection Scheme.

11. The Selection Scheme should always align the number of bedrooms 2 a household is assessed to need with the size criteria for eligible Housing Benefit customers. • Aligning the Selection Scheme with Housing Benefit should ensure a consistent approach, avoid confusion for applicants and enable good housing management. • The NIHE consulted on the alignment in 2012.

12. For difficult-to-let properties: Social landlords should be able to 5 make multiple offers to as many applicants as they think necessary.

13. For difficult-to-let properties: Social landlords should be able to use 5 choice-based letting.

19 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

At Allocation Stage - How homes are allocated Outcome

14. For difficult-to-let properties: Social landlords should be able to go 5 direct to multiple offers if they have evidence that a property will be difficult to let. • These proposals give landlords more discretion over how they let low-demand properties. • They help provide a greater range of solutions to meet housing need and allocate stock more quickly to those in greatest need. • Ulster University recommended a choice-based letting system for Northern Ireland. There is evidence of the benefits of choice-based letting for low-demand properties and recent pilots by the NIHE have confirmed this.

15. An applicant may receive two reasonable offers of accommodation. 5 • This proposal reduces the number of offers of accommodation from three to two. • If the two offers are refused, no further offers will be made for one year after the date of the last refusal. • This proposal minimises the time that stock is left empty and will enable stock to be allocated more quickly. • Ulster University recommended this change and it received support.

16. Social landlords may withdraw an offer of accommodation in 4,5 specified circumstances. • The NIHE told us this change is required to deal with a very specific, limited number of circumstances.

17. Social landlords may withhold consent for a policy succession or 4,5 assignment to a general needs social home in limited circumstances where there is evidence an applicant needs it. • This proposal should ensure good housing management and better use of public resources by enabling social landlords to make more effective use of general needs stock.

20 At Allocation Stage - How homes are allocated Outcome

18. Social landlords may withhold consent for a policy succession or 2,4,5 assignment of adapted accommodation or purpose built wheelchair standard accommodation where there is evidence an applicant needs it. • This proposal should ensure that the most effective use is made of existing adapted stock, and that waiting times for applicants requiring adapted accommodation are reduced.

19. Updating the Selection Scheme to bring it in line with developments 2 in Public Protection Arrangements Northern Ireland. • The NIHE requested this change to bring the Selection Scheme in line with recent developments in legislation.

20. Specialised properties should be allocated by a separate process 2,5 outside the Selection Scheme. • A review should be established to put a more effective allocation process in place for applicants needing specialised property such as sheltered dwellings / wheelchair standard accommodation. • This proposal should ensure an improved system for the most vulnerable applicants. • Ulster University recommended this approach and it received strong support.

21 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS

This section considers particular issues which can take place at any stage from application to allocation of a social home. There are four proposals:

1. An independent, tenure-neutral housing advice service for Northern Ireland.

2. An applicant who has been involved in unacceptable behaviour should not be eligible for social housing or Full Duty homelessness status unless there is reason to believe – at the time the application is considered – that the unacceptable behaviour is likely to cease.

3. NIHE may treat a person as ineligible for Full Duty homelessness status on the basis of their unacceptable behaviour at any time before allocating that person a social home.

4. NIHE can meet their duty to homeless applicants on a tenure-neutral basis, provided that the accommodation meets certain conditions.

22 Proposal 1: - An independent, tenure-neutral housing advice service for Northern Ireland

How it works now

Housing is an essential need, and the guidance, prospects and support service options available to meet that need can to help them find a solution. When be complex. Individuals and households customers first contact NIHE, staff work may have a variety of different needs and as housing advisors. That is they discuss aspirations for their housing. People may their current circumstances and future not have detailed knowledge of all the housing aspirations, including their: living options available to them. For example, arrangements, financial situation, available they may: social networks and any support needs. • Wish to apply for social housing in a They then use this information to offer particular area but may not be aware that these customers suitable options to meet there are no social homes in that area both their immediate housing needs and which meet their needs; allow them to make informed choices regarding their permanent housing options. • Not realise that they could qualify for co- These may include social housing, home ownership and part-buy / part-rent a home, ownership, private rented accommodation possibly at less than their current rent; or arrangements to help the customer • Be struggling with their mortgage and need remain in their current accommodation. help to keep their home; or • Need help to resolve a dispute with This service is provided in tandem a landlord. with NIHE’s statutory duties, under homelessness legislation and the Selection The NIHE is now implementing a ‘Housing Scheme and is not an alternative to an Solutions’ service. In areas with this service, individual’s legal rights. NIHE’s Housing Solutions and Support Teams work with customers who contact The Housing Solutions and Support Team NIHE regarding a housing problem, to will engage with customers and a range provide a comprehensive housing advice,

23 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

of statutory and voluntary agencies to Organisations such as the Housing Rights help secure their housing option. They will Service also provide information on housing make sure the appropriate support is in choices. Good independent housing advice place to ensure these customers have the is available and should continue to be skills and abilities to manage their home available to everyone who needs it across successfully over a sustained period of Northern Ireland on a consistent basis. time, with or without support, giving them It should ensure that clients are able to the best chance of making a success of discuss their housing options in privacy, their tenancy. respecting their dignity and confidentiality.

The proposal

There should be an independent, tenure- We propose that the service should neutral housing advice service for Northern offer tailored advice to help individuals Ireland. It should be open to all adults, and households meet their specific including those whose immigration status housing need and find or keep suitable or history of anti-social behaviour does not accommodation in any tenure. It should allow them to apply for a social home, and provide clear information to help people to anyone who requires advice on private understand their housing options and the housing. We encourage views on whether implications of the choices they might a single organisation should be the main make. The service could help clients to: provider of this service or whether it could • Apply for a social home (NIHE and Housing be carried out by a number of organisations Association properties); (statutory and non-statutory) who commit • Look for private rented accommodation; to a standardised level of service. • Get support to stay where they are (whether rented or owned); It should be noted that because of its • Consider co-ownership; or statutory functions, only the NIHE can • Consider full home ownership. make a statutory homelessness decision and take applications for a social home. Housing Associations may take applications These options are not exclusive, for from their own tenants. example someone may take up a private

24 rented tenancy but also apply for social disability, long-term illness, mental health housing and investigate co-ownership. issues or lack of competency in English. (There is an exception if the property is Provisions should be in place to ensure available from Smartmove1, a scheme client privacy and confidentiality. to help people access private rented properties. A condition of this scheme is This advice service is a critical component that the tenant gives up any social housing of the service government provides and application). the effectiveness of a number of the other proposals in this document. The service should be accessible to individuals who are vulnerable through

The evidence for proposal 1

The Ulster University research The NIHE’s Housing Solutions and Support recommended a ‘Housing Options’ advice Teams (HSST) aim to assist not only those service for Northern Ireland. This would households who meet the statutory mean that individuals can explore a range homelessness tests, but any household of housing options to meet their specific who is homeless or presents to the needs. Ulster University’s proposal for a NIHE or another partner agency with a housing advice service was extremely well- housing problem. received by the people and organisations who responded to their proposals. Many The ethos of the HSST approach is to, who responded to the Ulster University “Provide me with good quality housing recommendations stated that the service / support when I need it, shaped must be independent to ensure impartiality. around me”. The approach includes a comprehensive interview with clients to

1 Smartmove is the current provider: the terms of the scheme may change in future if the provider changes.

25 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

establish both their housing and support NIHE found that the increase in the needs and to explore all options to agree percentage of customers re-housed in an appropriate solution, drawing in the social housing in a shorter period of time is necessary additional support from other reflective of the emphasis on encouraging agencies as required. customers to choose areas of choice where they have realistic prospects of being re-housed. The outcomes of NIHE’s HSST approach so far, have included: • In April 2016, the average time from first Customers are provided with facts and data contact to housing assessment completed regarding the availability of specific types and letter issued, was reduced from of accommodation and turnover within between 15.4 - 29.4 days previously, to areas, and so are increasingly widening between 3.5 - 4.5 days. their areas of choice or choosing more appropriate areas of choice and therefore • In April 2016, the average time from first increasing their likelihood of being contact to homeless assessment completed allocated a property. and decision letter issued, was reduced from between 22.9 - 37.5 days previously, to between 7.9 – 8.8 days. The average customer satisfaction scores • To 31 March 2016, more than 10% of for the HSST approach have been between customers were helped to sustain their 8.1 – 9.7 out of 10. tenancy or their homelessness prevented. • 37% of HSST customers were re-housed in social housing and over 13% were supported to access the private rented sector.

Expected outcomes of proposal 1

This proposal should contribute to the Throughout the process, we want applicants following high level outcomes: to receive high quality, tailored, tenure- • A greater range of solutions to meet neutral advice to identify and consider how housing need. to meet their housing needs. • An improved system for the most vulnerable applicants.

26 Universal access to social housing

Social housing in Northern Ireland works 3. not have engaged in unacceptable on the principle of universal access. This behaviour serious enough to make him/ means that any adult can apply for a home her unsuitable to be a tenant of social if they meet the eligibility criteria. The housing. applicant has to: Some classes of people from abroad are 1. be over 18 (duties are extended to not eligible (as set out in the Housing 16 and 17 year olds who present as (Northern Ireland) Order 19812). homeless as per the Housing (NI) Order We want changes in law to clarify criteria 1988 and Children (NI) Order 1995 and number 3 above. Proposals 2 and 3 deal exceptions are listed at rule 12 of the with these changes. Housing Selection Scheme); 2. have a connection with Northern Ireland; and

2 “22A. – 1.The Executive shall not allocate housing accommodation – (a) to a person from abroad, if he is a person subject to immigration control who is ineligible for an allocation of housing accommodation by virtue of section 118 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (c.33); (b) to any other person from abroad, if he is a person ineligible for such an allocation by virtue of regulations under paragraph 3…” “(3) The Secretary of State may, for the purposes of paragraph 1(b), by regulations, specify classes of persons from abroad who are ineligible for an allocation of housing accommodation by the Executive”.

27 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

A NOTE ON ARMED FORCES APPLICANTS

The Armed Forces Covenant specifically states that:

“Members of the Armed Forces community should have the same access to social housing and any other schemes as any other citizen and not be disadvantaged in that respect by the requirement for mobility whilst in service”.

Members (and former members) of the Armed Forces, who have been based in Northern Ireland, do meet the local connection requirements and can access housing and homelessness assistance here. The NIHE processes applications from members and former members of the armed forces using the rules of the Selection Scheme as they would for any other applicant.

NIHE has processes in place to ensure staff are aware of the importance of dealing sensitively with housing and homelessness applications from former Armed Forces personnel. This should include considerations of privacy and confidentiality, which should be respected for all applicants.

HOMELESSNESS ISSUES FOR ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL

In terms of Homelessness assessments, the proposed housing advice service (see proposal 1) should examine an individual’s options and choices in the widest sense when they look for housing advice. This approach should include early preventative intervention and explore all possible housing options with a view to finding the best solution for the individual.

Where an applicant is a former member of the Armed Forces, any and all circumstances/ needs related to their service history should be taken into consideration. The housing advice service should signpost or make referrals to appropriate support organisations where necessary.

28 Proposals 2&3: - Changes to eligibility for applicants who have been involved in unacceptable behaviour

PROPOSAL 2: An applicant who has been involved in unacceptable behaviour should not be eligible for social housing or Full Duty homelessness status unless there is reason to believe – at the time the application is considered – that the unacceptable behaviour is likely to cease.

How it works now

The law3 states that the NIHE may treat a NIHE makes a decision based on a notional person as ineligible – for either Full Duty idea of what a court may do. It must: homelessness status or the allocation of • Satisfy itself that unacceptable behaviour a social home via the waiting list – if the has occurred, which is so serious that the person’s unacceptable behaviour is so NIHE would have been entitled to have serious that, if the person were a tenant, a possession order granted by the Court; the NIHE would be entitled to have a and possession order granted by the Court. • Consider whether a Court would decide that it was ‘reasonable’ to grant a possession order.

All cases must be thoroughly investigated and all decisions based on established facts.

3 Article 22A of the Housing (NI) Order (1981), Article 29 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 in relation to Ground 2 or Ground 3 in Schedule 3 to that Order, and Article 7A of the Housing (NI) Order (1988).

29 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

The proposal

We want to change the law to make it clear • Conversely, if there is no reason to how the NIHE should make a decision on believe that conduct will improve, the eligibility: NIHE may determine that the applicant • If the NIHE has good reason to believe is unsuitable to be a tenant and that a person’s conduct (or the conduct therefore is ineligible for social housing of a member of their household) will or Full Duty homelessness status. improve, they should not be treated as These changes may require changes to ineligible. primary legislation.

30 PROPOSAL 3: NIHE may treat a person as ineligible for Full Duty homelessness status on the basis of their unacceptable behaviour at any time before allocating that person a social home.

How it works now

A Full Duty Applicant is a housing applicant person’s application has been accepted that the NIHE has a legal responsibility and they have been placed in temporary towards. accommodation or on the social housing waiting list). The law4 states that the NIHE may decide to treat a person as ‘ineligible’ People with a priority need for housing, who for Full Duty homelessness status if, are not eligible for permanent re-housing “in the circumstances at the time the under the homelessness legislation, person’s application is considered, they retain their right to be provided with are unsuitable to be a tenant of the accommodation for as long as the NIHE NIHE”. People who have been involved in considers that they need assistance. unacceptable behaviour which would make them unsuitable to be a tenant are not Departmental guidance reminds the NIHE eligible for Full Duty homelessness status. that it must provide anyone it has decided to treat as ineligible with information about However, the law is being interpreted the ways in which they may re-establish as meaning that any decision to treat eligibility (e.g. evidence that the person has a person as ineligible must be made ‘at modified their behaviour or engaged with the time their application is considered’, appropriate support). rather than at a later stage (e.g. after the

4 Article 22A of the Housing (NI) Order (1981) and Article 7A of the Housing (NI) Order (1988).

31 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

The proposal

We want to change the law to make it behaviour after the homelessness clear that the NIHE may treat a person as application has been accepted. ineligible for Full Duty homelessness status on the basis of their unacceptable behaviour The NIHE must still take the circumstances at any time before allocating that person a of each case into consideration. The social home. Department will issue guidance to the NIHE to ensure that it takes account of the This could mean that, after the stressful nature of homelessness and the consideration set out in proposal 2 – possible impact on an individual’s behaviour. regarding whether there is good reason to believe that the unacceptable behaviour These changes may require changes to will stop – an applicant can be found to be primary legislation. ineligible if there is evidence of unacceptable

32 The evidence for proposals 2 & 3

Decisions on ineligibility affect a small for those guilty of unacceptable behaviour. number of applicants each year. The NIHE The Department has considered this cancelled 42 housing applications on recommendation and the current legislation grounds of unacceptable behaviour in 2014- and believes that both the eligibility test and 15 and 27 in 2015-16. The researchers from the legislation on eligibility should be further Ulster University recommended a two year clarified as outlined above. suspension from social housing allocations

Expected outcomes of proposals 2 & 3

These proposals should contribute to the The objective is to have a fair allocation following high level outcomes: process, ensure good housing management, • A greater range of solutions to meet reduce nuisance to tenants and strike a housing need. better balance between excluding people from the waiting list and prioritising • Better use of public resources by vulnerable groups. The housing advice ensuring the waiting list moves service recommended at Proposal 1 should smoothly. assist excluded applicants in ways other than an allocation of a social home.

33 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Proposal 4: - NIHE can meet their duty to homeless applicants on a tenure-neutal basis, provided that the accommodation meets certain conditions

How it works now

The Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 have been on the waiting list for more than sets out NIHE’s duty to people who are 5 years, despite the high number of points homeless. The NIHE: awarded to homeless applicants. • assesses if an applicant is homeless; • assists those applicants to find This demonstrates the need for a greater accommodation; and range of solutions to meet housing need. • awards the appropriate homelessness Social housing may not always be the points under the Selection Scheme. most effective way to meet an individual’s housing needs or the most efficient use of resources. The NIHE normally seeks to meet its duty to homeless applicants by offering a secure tenancy in a social home. Many homeless While it has been custom and practice in applicants will receive an allocation of a Northern Ireland for the NIHE to discharge social home in a reasonable time. However, the statutory homeless duty in the social the reality for many people is that there housing sector, existing legislation also may be few social homes available in their allows for the homelessness duty to be chosen areas or, in very high-demand areas, discharged in the private sector. they may have insufficient priority to access an allocation when it becomes available. There are 3,400 homeless applicants who

34 The proposal

A more holistic assessment of customers’ Kingdom, that reasonable accommodation circumstances, particularly as part of the could include private rented sector Housing Solutions and Support approach, accommodation. This would enable the may identify the private rented sector as NIHE to meet its homelessness duty offering a realistic and achievable solution on a tenure-neutral basis, provided the to their current housing crisis. accommodation that it offers:

We propose that the NIHE could, where • is reasonable for the household to appropriate, meet its homelessness duty occupy; by securing suitable accommodation • is of the appropriate standard; and in the private rented sector, subject to • is available for a reasonable period of certain safeguards. This means, in line time, e.g. a 12-month tenancy. with practice in other areas of the United

The evidence for proposal 4

The Department consulted on this proposal These laws say private landlords must: in 2010. Stakeholders welcomed this • Fulfil enancyt management duties; proposal provided there was greater • Comply with notice to quit periods; regulation of the private rented sector and • Provide tenants with a rent book free greater security of tenure within it. Since of charge; then the Department has worked on such improvements. • Ensure tenants are free from harassment and illegal eviction; and • Only charge a market rent on a property IMPROVEMENTS IN THE REGULATION built before 1945 if the property meets OF THE PRIVATE RENTED SECTOR the statutory fitness standard (for The Rent (NI) Order 1978 and the Private private tenancies commenced after Tenancies (NI) Order 2006 set out the law 1 April 2007). relating to the regulation of the private rented sector.

35 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

As a result of the Private Rented Strategy The Department issued a discussion paper (2010) the Department introduced the for public consultation (November 2015 Tenancy Deposit Scheme (April 2013) and to February 2016), with a commitment the Landlord Registration Scheme (February to issue a consultation document with a 2014). These measures helped to improve set of clear proposals on the way forward. tenancy management and provided greater This consultation (which ran from January security of tenure for long-term private to April 2017) focused on enhancing and rented tenants. improving the sector, making it a more attractive housing option for a wide range of households. Building on the strategy and acting on a commitment in the Department’s Housing Strategy (2012) the Department launched a It will be important to get the balance further review of the role and regulation of right, protecting tenants while ensuring the private rented sector; with the aim to: good landlords are not burdened with • Consider the current and potential unnecessary or cumbersome regulation. future role of the sector; Most landlords abide by the law and provide much-needed good quality and • Assess the effectiveness of current well managed accommodation. regulation; • Evaluate the Landlord Registration and Tenancy Deposit Schemes; and The ongoing improvements to the regulation of the private rented sector • Identify where improvements can be provide evidence that the NIHE can made to help make it a more attractive meet its duty to homeless applicants housing option. in appropriate private rented sector accommodation. Meeting the homelessness duty on a tenure-neutral basis is crucial in providing a greater and more effective range of solutions to meet a household’s housing need.

36 Expected outcomes of proposal 4

This proposal should contribute to the following high level outcome: • A greater range of solutions to meet housing need.

The objective is to ensure that the NIHE has a greater range of ways to meet its duty to homeless applicants and that it can provide more options for those applicants to meet their housing needs.

37 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

APPLICATION STAGE PROPOSALS

This section looks at when someone makes an application for social housing. There are two proposals in this section:

5. A greater choice of areas for all applicants for a social home.

6. Greater use of a mutual exchange service.

Both proposals are intended to provide a broader range of ways in which applicants can meet their housing needs.

38 Proposal 5: - A greater choice of areas for all applicants for a social home

How it works now

Applicants who apply for a social home months the NIHE expands their area of can choose one or two areas in which they choice to the larger General Housing Area would be prepared to live. The areas are surrounding the Common Landlord Area(s) defined by the NIHE, which offers either: the applicant chose. This is intended to increase the applicant’s likelihood of being offered a home. 1. one or two of the over 800 Common Landlord Areas, which usually cover a housing estate, a group of streets, a There are two issues: small town or a small village; or • The Selection Scheme limits applicants to choosing only two areas in which 2. one or two of the over 300 General they would like to live. Housing Areas. These are usually • When the NIHE expands the area of bigger areas that contain the Common choice for homeless applicants to the Landlord Area(s) General Housing Area after six months, the applicant may receive an offer of a property within an area where they do Landlords normally make offers to the not want to live. They may therefore relevant applicant with the most points refuse the offer. This can lengthen the when a suitable property becomes time it takes to allocate a much-needed available in one of those areas. home.

Homeless applicants can select one or two Common Landlord Areas, but after six

39 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

The proposal

All applicants for social housing (including help applicants reconsider their housing homeless applicants) should be able to options, including considering a wider choice choose as many or as few areas as they of areas, particularly where an offer of a want, i.e. one Common Landlord Area, or social home is more likely, or considering two or more Common Landlord Areas or suitable private rented housing if that is General Housing Areas. more readily available.

An applicant might be able to increase their Greater choice for applicants should work chances of an allocation by choosing more in the context of tailored housing advice, areas. Conversely, allowing applicants to both before and at the time of application. more precisely limit their choices to areas Advisors should clearly explain: where they genuinely wish to receive an • areas of choice alongside realistic offer of accommodation (for example, advice on the availability of social one Common Landlord Area) is likely to housing which is suitable for the cut the number of refusals of offers of applicant in that area; accommodation. • that choosing more areas might help applicants to get a social home The NIHE should no longer automatically more quickly; expand homeless applicants’ area(s) of • that only choosing one area might choice to the General Housing Area after six mean they wait longer; and months. Instead, follow-up support from the • the likelihood of an applicant with Housing Solutions and Support Team should their particular circumstances being be provided after six months. This recognises offered an appropriate property in the extra support that homeless applicants particular areas. might need to find a home. Support should

40 The evidence for proposal 5

Ulster University considered the number of Wave 2: April to June 2015. The findings areas of choice in their first report (‘Current showed that: approaches to accessing and allocating • 25% would have preferred to have social housing in NI’, pages 43-46). Some a wider/bigger area of choice if this stakeholders they spoke to suggested resulted in them receiving an offer reducing the total number of Common more quickly. Landlord Areas in Northern Ireland (i.e. • 16% would have been interested fewer, larger areas), but others thought that in choosing a smaller area, even if it offering fewer, larger Common Landlord took longer for them to be allocated Areas would likely result in more refusals. a property. There was a suggestion that “applicants should be able to select more areas of choice, including more than one General This suggests that the existing areas of Housing Area and... this approach may help choice (Common Landlord Areas and to manage expectations.” 5 General Housing Areas) have a useful function in reflecting the area preferences of applicants. Making the areas larger – Ulster University ultimately recommended a and choices less refined – could lead to choice-based letting system across Northern more refusals. For full details of the survey Ireland which would have made Common results, see Annex A. Landlord Areas redundant. However this system did not secure widespread support in the public responses to the Based on the evidence available, it would recommendations. Therefore there is still be more effective to enable applicants to a case for change to the areas of choice choose areas precisely (e.g. one Common available to applicants. Landlord Area, or many areas), as it increases the likelihood of an offer of social housing being accepted. WHAT TENANTS THINK

We commissioned NIHE to ask its recently- However, to work effectively, applicants allocated tenants about this in the should also receive good advice to support Continuous Tenant Omnibus Survey their decision and manage expectations.

5 At www.communities-ni.gov.uk/publications/fundamental-review-social-housing-allocations-policy

41 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Expected outcomes of proposal 5

This proposal should contribute to the The key objective is to allow applicants to following high level outcomes: identify their geographical housing needs • A greater range of solutions to meet more precisely and by doing so reduce the housing need. number of refusals. • Better use of public resources by ensuring the waiting list moves smoothly.

42 Proposal 6: - Greater use of a mutual exchange service

How it works now

People who live in social homes can apply The NIHE has approximately 10,000 transfer for a transfer and / or they can use a mutual applicants and 1,700 registrations on exchange service. The NIHE currently the mutual exchange service. We cannot provides this service in Northern Ireland know for sure if the people registered for via a procured service (currently known as the service are also transfer applicants. HomeSwapper). This service helps people However, it would appear that there is find other households who want to swap great room for expansion in the numbers their home. Tenants do not need to register of transfer applicants who could register for a transfer in order to register with a for the service. A mutual exchange service mutual exchange service. could help some people to move more quickly and meets two transfer applicants’ housing needs / aspirations at once.

The proposal

The NIHE and Housing Associations should The housing advice service and landlords promote the mutual exchange service more. might advise victims of intimidation, anti- When a tenant applies for a transfer this social behaviour or domestic violence NOT service should be discussed. Assistance to register for such a service. This is because and support to register and use the online it might make it possible for perpetrators to service should be provided. trace the address of their new home via the new occupant.

43 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

The evidence for proposal 6

Ulster University looked at best practice • There are enhanced tenant satisfaction elsewhere and recommended greater use of levels associated with these moves; a mutual exchange service because: • There are better tenancy sustainment • It can meet at least two cases of rates associated with these moves; housing need at once; • They are particularly effective in areas • It has the potential to meet the housing where demand outstrips supply; need of existing tenants faster than • It is an effective use of housing stock; simply using the transfer list; • There is no associated void loss (unlike • It has the potential to offer more choice when making a transfer); and for existing tenants including location, • There are no change of tenancy size and type of property; works costs.

Expected outcomes of proposal 6

This proposal should contribute to the The objective is to increase the proportion following high level outcomes: of transfer applicants who use the mutual • A greater range of solutions to meet exchange service. The proposal should also housing need. contribute to minimising the time that stock is empty. • Better use of public resources by ensuring the waiting list moves smoothly.

44 ASSESSMENT STAGE PROPOSALS

This section looks at how the housing need of applicants for social housing is assessed. There are three proposals in this section. They aim to adjust the points system by ensuring that the waiting list is a fairer and more accurate representation of households’ objective housing need.

7. The removal of intimidation points from the Selection Scheme.

8. Points should reflect current circumstances for all applicants.

9. The removal of Interim Accommodation points from the Selection Scheme.

It is not proposed to change any other elements of the current points scheme, unless there are impacts from other proposals within this consultation. For example, if Proposal 10 (banding) is implemented, it would be appropriate to remove points in the current scheme for time in housing need.

45 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

The Housing Selection Scheme

The Selection Scheme awards points under four categories: intimidation, insecurity of tenure, housing conditions, and health and social care needs. The total points from all categories should reflect the applicant’s current housing need. Points are allocated as follows:

Section 1 Intimidation Points

Intimidation 200

Section 2 Insecurity of tenure Points

Homeless or threatened with homelessness 70

Other homeless 50

Interim accommodation 20

Section 3 Housing conditions Points

Sharing

1 Applicant with dependant children who is:

- Sharing a kitchen 10

- Sharing a living room 10

- Sharing a toilet 10

- Sharing a bath or shower 10

46 2 Applicant aged 18 years and over without dependant children who is:

- Sharing a kitchen 5

- Sharing a living room 5

- Sharing a toilet 5

- Sharing a bath or shower 5

3 Applicant aged 16 -18 years without dependant children who is:

- Sharing a kitchen 5

- Sharing a living room 5

- Sharing a toilet 5

- Sharing a bath or shower 5

Overcrowding Each bedroom short of criteria 10

Lack of amenities and disrepair The applicant’s current accommodation:

1 is not free from serious disrepair 10

2 is not free from dampness which is prejudicial to the 10 health of the occupants

3 does not have adequate provision for lighting, heating 10 and ventilation

4 does not have an adequate supply of wholesome water 10

5 does not have satisfactory facilities for the preparation and 10 cooking of food, including a sink with a satisfactory supply of hot and cold water

47 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

6 does not have a suitably located water closet (W.C.) for 10 the exclusive use of the occupants 7 does not have, for the exclusive use of the occupants, a 10 suitably located fixed bath or shower, each of which is provided with a satisfactory supply of hot and cold water

8 does not have an electricity supply 10

Time in This is only awarded to applicants with points on the Up to 10 housing need Waiting List. 2 points per year (for a maximum of five years) after two years on the Waiting List Section 4 Health and social well being Points

Functional matrix Max 32

Unsuitable accommodation 10

Support/care needs matrix (only applicable to those applying for sheltered or supported housing)

Home management Max 16

Self care Max 14

Each Primary Social Needs factor (capped at 2 factors Max 40 i.e. 2x20 points)

Each Other Social Needs factor Max 40

Complex needs (General needs housing) 20

Under-occupation (transfer applicants only) 10 per extra room

48

The highest points awarded are for intimidation (200 points), statutory (full duty) homelessness (70), and other homelessness (50). Almost all other points awarded are much lower. However, they can accumulate to reflect circumstances where an applicant has high housing need.

All the points relate directly to housing and personal safety circumstances, rather than to non-housing issues, such as whether an applicant is a ‘key worker’, or contributes to society by volunteering. This should continue to be the case.

49 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Proposal 7: - The removal of intimidation points from the Selection Scheme

How it works now

At present, the Selection Scheme awards the opinion of the housing officer, intimidation points if: be a serious and imminent risk that the applicant or one or more of the applicant’s household would be killed or 1. The applicant’s home has been seriously injured as a result of terrorist, destroyed or seriously damaged (by racial or sectarian attack, or an attack explosion, fire or other means) as a which is motivated by hostility because result of: of an individual’s disability or sexual • a terrorist, racial or sectarian attack; orientation or as a result of an attack • an attack motivated by hostility by a person who falls within the scope because of an individual’s disability of the Housing Executive’s statutory or sexual orientation; or powers to address neighbourhood • an attack by a person who falls within nuisance or other similar forms of the scope of the NIHE’s statutory anti-social behaviour. powers to address neighbourhood nuisance or other similar forms of In practice therefore, an applicant who anti-social behaviour. is the victim of intimidation receives 290 points, even if, in all other respects, their OR housing circumstances are suitable for 2. The applicant cannot reasonably be their needs: expected to live, or to resume living in his or her home, because, if he or Intimidation 200 she were to do so, there would, in Homelessness +70

Primary Social Needs +20 for violence/ threat of violence

290

50 The 200 intimidation points were intended as homeless on grounds of intimidation, to give that applicant priority over almost of which 414 were accepted as Full Duty every other household on the waiting list. Applicants. The majority of intimidation Victims of intimidation will usually rank cases now result from paramilitary threats. highest on the waiting list for permanent Other categories of intimidation include housing ahead of others who may, anti-social behaviour and intimidation for example, be living in poor housing on grounds of a person’s racial identity, conditions and may have been waiting disability or sexual orientation. Although much longer for a home. intimidation points were originally introduced because of sectarian violence related to ‘the Troubles’, only 6% of REASONS FOR THE AWARDING OF intimidation cases in the three years INTIMIDATION POINTS from 2013/14 to 2015/16 were categorised The number of households awarded as sectarian. intimidation points is relatively small. In 2015/16, 582 applicants presented

Intimidation statistics (2013/14 to 2015/16)

Intimidation - Anti-social behaviour 9.5%

Intimidation – Paramilitary 76.9%

Intimidation – Racial 5.4%

Intimidation – Sectarian 6.0%

Intimidation - Sexual orientation 2.1%

51 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

HOUSEHOLDS AWARDED INTIMIDATION ISSUES WITH INTIMIDATION POINTS POINTS There have been media reports alleging the At 1st December 2015 the household abuse of intimidation points to gain access breakdown of the intimidation case to desirable properties. The Ulster University applicants on the waiting list was as follows: Report 1: ‘Current approaches to accessing and allocating social housing in NI’ (pages 23-24)6 found no verifiable evidence of Household Type Total intimidation points being abused.

Elderly 14 HOW INTIMIDATION IS CURRENTLY Large Adult <10 ADDRESSED The NIHE acknowledges that hate Large Family 37 harassment has been identified as a current issue in Northern Ireland. NIHE Single 188 promotes a clear and strong message that Small Adult 19 it will not tolerate hate crime in any form on its estates and will take appropriate Small Family 41 action to effectively address and eradicate hate crime motivated by someone’s perceived ethnicity, sexual orientation, There is a high proportion of single person religion, political opinion, disability or households (62%) among those found to gender identity. have been intimidated. Applicants with intimidation points are mainly Protestant Local Offices can help if a victim has no or Catholic and generally white. home, is in danger of losing their home or is afraid to go home because someone Figures for 2014/15 show that 9% of those has been violent, or because of threats of who have been intimidated are re-housed violence likely to be carried out. Support in the same Common Landlord Area they can range from providing safe temporary were recorded as living in prior to being accommodation, or advice and assistance re-housed. on finding somewhere else to live.

6 www.communities-ni.gov.uk/publications/fundamental-review-social-housing-allocations-policy

52 The NIHE’s Housing Solutions and Support Through partnership with the Northern service (referred to under Proposal 1 in Ireland Association for Care and this document) is being successfully Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO), the used to support customers who have NIHE provides a floating support service experienced hate crime and incidents, which provides assistance to people whose utilising the expertise of other agencies tenancy may be at risk due to harassment where appropriate. or intimidation.

In respect of its own tenants, the NIHE The NIHE’s “Safer Together” Community provides support to individual victims of Safety Strategy 2015-2017 recognises the hate crime to enable them to continue devastating impact that hate harassment to hold their tenancy. Support will vary can have on victims. The NIHE is committed depending on tenants’ needs and wishes, to identifying and responding to hate as well as a range of external factors incidents and, where possible, perpetrators and local circumstances. NIHE works in will be dealt with through the NIHE’s Anti- partnership with the Police Service of Social Behaviour (ASB) process. Northern Ireland (PSNI), local groups, and a range of other agencies to identify the If the intimidation takes the form of level of any threat, the potential for repeat physical damage, the HIPA (Hate Incident attacks and to see if a solution can be Practical Action) Scheme is available across developed to support a tenant to sustain Northern Ireland to support victims of hate their tenancy. incidents in their homes. It is supported by the Department of Justice, the PSNI, the NIHE also supports a range of initiatives NIHE and the Department for Communities. to address hate harassment, anti- The scheme is available to owner- social behaviour and fear of crime in occupiers, tenants in privately rented their estates. Examples of these are accommodation, NIHE properties and has community safety warden schemes, street recently been extended to cover Housing pastors, home security schemes, good Association properties. morning services, diversionary activities, physical works to communal areas and intergenerational workshops.

53 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

The proposal

We propose the removal of intimidation mobility needs which are not met in their points from the Selection Scheme. This current home). proposed change would not affect the current practice regarding urgent treatment We believe that the removal of intimidation of those experiencing intimidation. Where points from the Selection Scheme a person is considered to be in serious and would recognise the housing need of imminent danger the NIHE would remove intimidated households in a fairer and more them from that danger and offer alternative proportionate way. accommodation on an emergency basis.

People who have been made homeless As currently, should the person wish to through intimidation should continue remain in their home or subsequently to receive Primary Social Needs points express a wish to return to their home, the (20) to recognise the trauma associated NIHE would take all reasonable steps to with violence or the fear of violence the facilitate this. applicant has experienced, in addition to homelessness points (70). In this way The aim is to address the immediate they would be treated similarly to other personal safety of the applicant and then applicants who may have experienced address the applicant’s housing need via the equally traumatic circumstances, for Selection Scheme. example the loss of their home because of fire, flood or other disaster and who are assisted, alongside all other existing This process is in line with other homeless applicants, through the homelessness applicants also in serious emergency legislation and the Selection Scheme. housing need (e.g. victims of domestic violence or people with serious medical or

54 The evidence for proposal 7

NIHE’S 2011 PRELIMINARY The consultation called for a review of CONSULTATION ON CHANGES the points awarded but did not specify TO THE SELECTION SCHEME a removal or a reduction of points. The In 2011 the NIHE consulted on changing NIHE proposal to review intimidation intimidation points. It highlighted the low points was well-received. Ulster University proportion of ‘historical’ (i.e. sectarian) referred to the NIHE consultation and intimidation and stated that, spoke to stakeholders. Ulster University Report 1: Current approaches to accessing and allocating social housing in NI (p55) “an increasing proportion of cases summarised the view of stakeholders: are of a community based nature involving neighbourhood disputes “The majority of stakeholders or instances of anti-social behaviour thought that priority should be given which may have escalated to a to those who had experienced a more serious level. In such cases sudden or serious act which could there may be alternative options for cause threat to life or loss of home. mitigating or resolving the problem, These included fire and flood or thereby supporting and enabling the those forced from their homes applicant to remain in or return to as a result, for example, of racial their home. harassment, domestic violence or another threat to the person. A range of community safety Intimidation points in their current measures have been put in place form should be removed and serious by the NIHE and its partner situations should be dealt with in a organisations to help address anti- consistent manner.” social behaviour, neighbour disputes, harassment and intimidation issues through discussion, support, mediation and, in some cases, legal action.”7

7 Page 9 at www.nihe.gov.uk/housing_selection_scheme_preliminary_consultation_paper.pdf

55 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

NIHE MODELLING OF THE IMPACTS OF • An urban area (low demand); and REMOVING INTIMIDATION POINTS • An urban area (with rural hinterland). To provide evidence to support this fundamental review of allocations, the The NIHE looked at allocations over a Department asked NIHE to model the two-month period and identified any impacts of two key proposed changes: allocations which went to applicants with allocations on the basis of bands intimidation points. They then considered (see proposal 10); and the removal of which households would have received intimidation points. A note on the key an allocation if intimidation points had no findings of NIHE’s 2015 modelling exercise longer been part of the Selection Scheme. is available at Annex B, with further information on banding at Annex C To do this, two circumstances were and the NIHE full report at Annex D. considered: i. if intimidation points were removed The NIHE carried out the modelling in three from all applicants who had been stages; considering the impact of: awarded them, and 1. Allocating from bands of applicants in ii. if the intimidation points award was similar levels of need by time on waiting much lower, i.e. 40 instead of 200 list (see proposal 10) (so 160 points were removed from all 2. The impact of either removing the applicants who had been awarded 200 intimidation points altogether or intimidation points). reducing them significantly, from 200 to 40. All applicants kept all other points, including 3. The impact of allocating from bands (for those who had been intimidated) the with intimidation points removed (see 70 homelessness points and 20 points proposal 10). awarded for violence/ threat of violence at their address. The researchers then used the This section will consider the ‘stage two’ actual waiting list at the time the real-life modelling, i.e. isolating the impact of the allocation was made to go through every removal or reduction of intimidation points. case and identify which applicant would have received an allocation if intimidation Actual allocations and waiting lists in three points were removed or reduced. There were areas were examined: only four intimidation cases allocated in the high demand urban area in the study period • An urban area (high demand); and one in the lower demand urban area.

56 There were none in the area with a large urban area at the time of the study.) rural hinterland. The following cases, using real-life (Note that the researchers had no access applicants who were allocated a home to information about offers made to or were on the waiting list, demonstrate applicants that were refused. There who actually got the allocation as per the were 28 applicants with intimidation points current scheme, and who would have got on the waiting list in the high demand the allocation using the proposed scheme.

57 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

The Modelling Research: What happens now and what we propose The modelling research: What happens now and what we propose CASE 1

What happens What we Household Housing Points now propose Applicant 1 70 Homeless 20 Primary Social Needs - Fear of Violence Age: 26-59 10 Social Needs - access to children No dependants + 200 Intimidation Points awarded Applied 2013 300 100 300 HOUSE ALLOCATED REMAINS ON LIST Applicant 2 70 Homeless 40 Overcrowding Age: 16-25 10 Social Needs - remaining person’s health 1 dependant 40 Family sharing kitchen & Living Room Applied 2011 & WC & Bathroom

06 Time in Housing Need 224 224 18 Possible Functionality REMAINS ON LIST HOUSE ALLOCATED + 40 Other social needs 224

CASE 2

What happens What we Household Housing Points now propose Applicant 1 70 Homeless 20 Primary Social Needs - Fear of Violence Age: 18-25 20 Over 18 sharing Kitchen & Living Room No dependants & WC & bathroom Applied 2014 + 200 Intimidation Points awarded 310 110 HOUSE ALLOCATED REMAINS ON LIST 310

70 Homeless Applicant 2 20 Interim Accommodation Age: 26-59 20 Primary Social Needs - Violence 1 Dependant 40 Other Social Needs Applied 2009 40 Family sharing Kitchen & Living Room & WC & bathroom 20 Overcrowding 228 228 REMAINS ON LIST HOUSE ALLOCATED 10 Lack of amenities - no light / heat / ventilation + 08 Time in housing need 228

58 CASE 3

What happens What we Household Housing Points now propose Applicant 1 70 Homeless 10 Overcrowding Age: 26-59 10 Social Needs - Access to Children No dependants 20 Over 18 sharing kitchen & living room Applied 2013 & WC & bathroom 312 112 HOUSE ALLOCATED REMAINS ON LIST 02 Time in housing need + 200 Intimidation Points awarded 312

70 Homeless Applicant 2 20 Interim Accommodation Age: 26-59 20 Primary Social Needs - Violence 1 Dependant 40 Other Social Needs Applied 2009 40 Family sharing Kitchen & Living Room & WC & bathroom 20 Overcrowding 228 228 REMAINS ON LIST HOUSE ALLOCATED 10 Lack of amenities - no light / heat / ventilation + 08 Time in housing need 228 CASE 4

What happens What we Household Housing Points now propose Applicant 1 70 Homeless 20 Over 18 sharing kitchen & living Age: 18-25 room & WC & bathroom No dependants + 200 Intimidation Points awarded Applied 2013 290 90 290 HOUSE ALLOCATED REMAINS ON LIST

Applicant 2 70 Homeless 20 Primary Social Needs; harassment/ Age: 18-25 fear of violence No dependants 10 Other Social Needs; remaining persons health Applied 2008 20 Complex needs 40 Family sharing Kitchen & Living Room 170 170 & WC & bathroom REMAINS ON LIST HOUSE ALLOCATED + 10 Time in housing need 170

59 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

CASE 5

What happens What we Household Housing Points now propose Applicant 1 70 Homeless 30 Other Social Needs 26-59 Age: 20 Complex Needs No dependants + 200 Intimidation Points awarded Applied 2014 320 120 320 HOUSE ALLOCATED REMAINS ON LIST

Applicant 2 70 Homeless 10 Social Needs -socially isolated Age: 60+ 28 Functionality Points No dependants (includes wheelchair dependency) Applied 2014 40 Other Social Needs + 20 Possible Area Points for social needs 168 168 168 REMAINS ON LIST HOUSE ALLOCATED

NOTE: For reasons of confidentiality / anonymity / data protection the reason for all points awarded was not visible to the researchers. It is also unclear to the researchers if the applicant who actually received the allocation was homeless prior to the intimidation incident or not.

60 It is clear from the research and the case ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE studies above that if intimidation points had The NIHE provided a snapshot of the points been removed: level of applicants with intimidation points • In all cases, a different applicant in a on the waiting list at 1 November 2015. high level of housing need would have received the allocation; • The applicant who would have received Intimidation Cases the home had a larger range of housing Points Band Total Cases issues and needs than the applicant with intimidation points; 360 points 17 • The applicant who would have received the home had waited much longer 320 – 359 points 74 than the applicant with intimidation < 319 points 186 points; and • In most cases the applicant who Grand Total 277 would have received the home had a dependant living with them, while the applicant with intimidation points This shows that one third of applicants with did not. intimidation points have high points awards (320 or more). This means that in addition The sample size of this exercise was small to the intimidation they are in housing and therefore not necessarily representative stress. The remaining two thirds have less of allocations as a whole. However, as proof than 320 points; which includes 290 points of principle it confirms that the removal of to reflect the intimidation and highlights all intimidation points: that they have less than thirty points for other housing reasons. • meets the policy intent of treating equally all homeless applicants in similarly traumatic circumstances; and • should provide that those in greatest objective housing need receive priority, by ensuring that personal safety matters do not override unsatisfactory housing circumstances.

61 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

WHAT TENANTS THINK because their home is unliveable (e.g. The NIHE surveyed 100 recently-allocated through fire), were regarded as “essential” tenants about the priority that should be ahead of those who need to move because given to applicants in different housing they were threatened with intimidation. circumstances. Applicants who need to However, those threatened with intimidation move to ensure their safety from domestic were considered “high priority” by many violence and those who need to move (see Annex A).

Expected outcome of proposal 7

This proposal should contribute to the takes over similarly serious and enduring following high level outcome: circumstances. • A more accurate list that reflects current housing circumstances. Removing intimidation points from the Selection Scheme would meet the objective By continuing to award homelessness of greater parity with other applicants in points and primary social needs points, serious emergency housing need. This this proposal continues to reflect the should recognise the housing need of high priority of intimidation. However, the intimidated households in a fairer and proposal ends the over-riding priority (i.e. more proportionate way. 200 points) that intimidation currently

62 Proposal 8: - Points should reflect current circumstances for all applicants

How it works now

INCREASING AND DECREASING POINTS This ‘No Detriment’ policy is not set out When an applicant reports a change in their in the rules of the Selection Scheme. It is circumstances, such as a change in address a custom and practice which began with or a change in household composition, the the introduction of the current Selection NIHE carries out a reassessment. Scheme in November 2000. The rationale for this was to recognise the applicant’s housing/homelessness journey, and to Following a reassessment an ordinary assist in discharging the statutory duty in a housing applicant can have points either reasonable period of time. added or taken away. However, a Full Duty homeless applicant can only have points added and never taken away. This is known WITHDRAWING POINTS as the ‘No Detriment’ policy. For ordinary applicants points may be withdrawn. However, points awarded to those found to be Full Duty Applicants Example: (homeless) may not be withdrawn. The If an applicant moves from self-contained statutory duty may be discharged in the accommodation into accommodation following circumstances: which they are sharing with others or (a) When the applicant has been rehoused; where there is overcrowding their points would increase. (b) When the applicant has refused three reasonable offers; or (c) When the applicant has withdrawn the If that same applicant later moves application. to accommodation where there is no overcrowding the points would be removed if they are an ordinary applicant. Their The Selection Scheme works on the principle points would not be removed if they are of allocating homes to people in the greatest a Full Duty Applicant. housing need. Therefore, points awarded

63 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

under the Selection Scheme should reflect even points awarded in error. Their points the applicant’s current circumstances. may reflect their historic, not their current, However, as the examples show, the ‘no circumstances. Those applicants whose detriment’ policy means that an applicant circumstances have improved may have who has been awarded Full Duty Applicant priority over applicants who are currently in status can be on the waiting list with points poorer circumstances. accumulated from previous assessments or

The proposal

A new rule should be introduced to provide These are awarded where the applicant or for the reduction or withdrawal of points a member of the applicant’s household is where appropriate. The new rule should experiencing or has experienced: make it clear that points that have been 1. violence or is at risk of violence awarded (or keyed) incorrectly shall be including physical, sexual, emotional or removed and the applicant notified. domestic violence or child abuse; or The current ‘No Detriment’ policy of 2. harassment, including racial protecting a Full Duty Applicant’s points, harassment, and there is a fear of other than those detailed below, should actual violence; or cease. At all changes of circumstances 3. fear of actual violence for another the applicant should be reassessed and reason, and the applicant is afraid given points appropriate to their current to remain in his or her current circumstances. This means points may be accommodation; or awarded or withdrawn. 4. distress/anxiety caused by recent trauma which has occurred in the However some points are personal to the applicant’s current accommodation. applicant (or a member of the applicant’s household) and are awarded for serious This should ensure that all applicants circumstances. These points are known as receive points according to their current Primary Social Needs points. We recognise housing circumstances. that the factors for these points are a one-off award and cannot be removed.

64 The evidence for proposal 8

NIHE identified the need for this change the Selection Scheme, the allocation of to ensure the effective operation of the social housing should always be based on Selection Scheme. To properly reflect applicants’ current circumstances. housing need and ensure accordance with

Expected outcome of proposal 8

This proposal should contribute to the It should make the Selection Scheme fairer following high level outcome: and more transparent to applicants as they • A more accurate waiting list that know they will be assessed on their current reflects current housing circumstances. circumstances. This should maintain a focus on prioritising current housing need.

65 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Proposal 9: - The removal of interim accommodation points from the Selection Scheme

How it works now

Under the current Selection Scheme Full the points were introduced, temporary Duty Applicants (homeless) are awarded accommodation mostly involved sharing 20 additional points if they have spent facilities such as bathrooms, kitchens and six months in temporary accommodation living areas with other people not in the which is arranged by the NIHE under the applicant’s household. The points were Homelessness legislation. awarded after six months to recognise the length of time living in such circumstances and to improve the re-housing prospects of Under the ‘No Detriment’ policy these applicants experiencing homelessness. The points are retained by the applicant, even points were intended to make it easier for if they move to other accommodation at a applicants to move on and avoid expensive later date (see proposal 8). temporary accommodation provision getting full up. The points are not awarded to those applicants who arrange temporary The evidence set out below suggests accommodation themselves (whether with that interim points are not resulting in family or friends or in a short term private households being allocated a home more sector lease) or those applicants who quickly than the average applicant. There remain ‘homeless at home’ because their have also been concerns that this approach accommodation is unreasonable for them is inequitable particularly for those to occupy. homeless households who arrange their own temporary accommodation. REASON FOR AWARDING INTERIM POINTS The points were introduced to recognise the additional stress associated with living in temporary accommodation. At the time

66 The proposal

Interim Accommodation Points should be in the highest band who has waited removed from the Selection Scheme. longest (see Proposal 10); The removal of interim points from • Full Duty Applicants should be regularly the Selection Scheme would recognise assessed as part of the Housing the housing need of all those requiring Solutions and Support approach temporary accommodation in a fairer and (see Proposal 1) so that their current more proportionate way. circumstances are assessed and they are kept informed of the options available to them; and The fundamental issue is the length of time that people who are accepted as homeless • increasing the choice of areas for all await permanent re-housing. Rather than applicants (see Proposal 5) provides providing some applicants with 20 points greater opportunities to find suitable after spending 6 months in temporary accommodation more quickly. accommodation, the Department believes that housing need is more effectively The NIHE’s Homelessness Strategy for NI addressed through the following proposals: 2017-22, “Ending Homelessness Together” • the length of time spent waiting in includes a commitment to develop a temporary accommodation (whether Temporary Accommodation Provision provided by the NIHE or sourced by the Strategy, with a view to providing the applicant) should be recognised solely right mix of accommodation for the by time waiting rather than points; needs of clients. namely, by allocating to the applicant

67 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

The evidence for proposal 9

In 2011/12, the NIHE’s preliminary Stakeholders again suggested to consultation on changes to the Selection incrementally increase the award and Scheme identified a number of aspects to include those whose temporary of the scheme which could benefit from accommodation was not provided modernisation. With regard to homeless by NIHE. applicants in temporary accommodation it was proposed “that additional Interim Respondents also felt that recognition Accommodation Points should be awarded should be taken of the improving nature incrementally to recognise time spent of temporary accommodation and the in temporary accommodation by those significant move away from B&B and applicants who are owed the full statutory shared hostel provision to self-contained housing duty under the homelessness accommodation in the private rented sector. legislation (Full Duty Applicants; FDAs)”. In the main, respondents stated interim points should be awarded to The University of Ulster’s Final Report all statutory homeless applicants and recommendations focused on moving from should be made on an incremental basis. a points-based system to a banded system Interim accommodation points were to prioritise applicants, and therefore the subsequently raised as an area of concern issue of interim points within the current by stakeholders in the Ulster University scheme was not directly addressed. Report 1: Current approaches to accessing and allocating social housing in NI (2013, As part of the equality screening process page 57) in relation to the nature and for the review of the social housing weighting of housing need criteria. Of allocations policy, the Department particular note was the view that “the compared applicants with interim current number of points awarded makes accommodation points with all applicants little or no difference to their chances of on the waiting list (see Annex B of the being re-housed.”8 Equality Screening at www.communities- ni.gov.uk/allocations-review).

8 www.nihe.gov.uk/housing_selection_scheme_preliminary_consultation_paper.pdf and www.communities-ni.gov.uk/publications/fundamental-review-social-housing-allocations-policy

68 The screening exercise showed that Retaining the points with an incremental almost all households with interim increase in points the longer an applicant accommodation points are waiting longer has waited than the average, both in terms of time • This would ensure that those who have on the waiting list and time waited to waited longest receive an increased receive an allocation. There may be wider level of priority. reasons for this, such as housing supply • However, it would not address the and changing demographics. However, it current unfairness whereby those who appears that under the current scheme, source their own accommodation do interim accommodation points do not not receive these points. mean that applicants experience shorter waiting times. Extending the points to all applicants whether placed in temporary The Department considered the available accommodation by the NIHE or options as follows: self-arranged Removal of interim accommodation points • This would be fairer to those in high • Whilst these points add to the priority housing need who source their own status of this group, awarding 20 accommodation. points is not having the desired • It would not necessarily benefit those effect: households in temporary most in need: it could simply have the accommodation are waiting longer than effect of increasing the points awarded the average for an allocation. to all Full Duty Applicants, and may • The removal meets the aim of awarding not work to prioritise those in greatest points equally to all who are statutorily housing need. homeless. • It may not resolve the issue of • An alternative way of prioritising is households spending long periods in to allocate to the applicant in the temporary accommodation without highest band who has waited longest receiving the offer of a home. (see proposal 10). This gives more recognition to time waiting and may WHAT TENANTS THINK offer effective outcomes for those in temporary accommodation. The NIHE asked 100 recently-allocated tenants how long they had waited for an allocation: • 29% had waited 6 months or less; • 41% had waited 6 months to 1 year;

69 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

• 13% had waited 1-2 years; Living in temporary accommodation was • 9% had waited 2-5 years; less likely to be considered ‘essential’ (17%), although many (50%) thought it should • 5% had waited more than 5 years; and receive high priority; when asked about • 3% could not recall or did not know. ‘homeless applicants staying with friends or family’, 14% considered this group The NIHE asked the same people what ‘essential’, while a further 38% thought they level of priority should be given to should receive high priority. This suggests different applicants. They responded that that people perceive homelessness as a allocations were essential in the following high priority whether or not applicants are in circumstances: temporary accommodation or staying with • Domestic violence and emergencies family and friends. (34%); • Intimidation (28%); and For full details see Annex A. • Medical / mobility reasons (21%).

Expected outcomes of proposal 9

This proposal should contribute to the The high level of need of people who are following high level outcomes: homeless should continue to be reflected in • A more accurate waiting list that the 70 Full Duty Applicant points and points reflects current housing circumstances. for individual housing circumstances. Our proposal for greater recognition of time • Those in greatest housing need receive waiting through banding, combined with priority, with recognition of their time points should deliver the outcome that in need. those waiting longest in high levels of need will have a greater likelihood of receiving an By removing Interim Accommodation Points offer of a social home. those homeless applicants who opt for other temporary accommodation (i.e. not arranged by the NIHE) would no longer be treated less favourably.

70 Other points within the Selection Scheme should remain unchanged

It is not proposed to change any other elements of the current points scheme, unless there are impacts from other proposals within this consultation.

UNSUITABLE ACCOMMODATION POINTS As part of this review, we considered a proposal previously consulted upon by the NIHE, to increase the points awarded for unsuitable accommodation. The aim was to avoid the need for a homelessness assessment in some cases.

In the Selection Scheme, applicants can receive 10 ‘Unsuitable Accommodation’ points. These are awarded where an applicant (or a member of their household) has difficulty getting access to their current accommodation which is above ground floor level and not served by a lift. Alternatively, ten points are awarded for unsuitable accommodation where a second person in the household is over a threshold of points for mobility in their current accommodation. These points do not relate to the fitness or condition of the accommodation itself. They assess an applicant’s mobility needs for more easily accessible accommodation.

Points relating to the fitness or condition of accommodation are available in the ‘lack of amenities and disrepair’ part of the Selection Scheme for housing that is unfit (e.g. it is damp, or lacking a water or electricity supply).

NIHE’s Housing Solutions Support Service and the proposed housing advice service (Proposal 1) will provide ongoing support throughout a tenancy. For applicants awarded unsuitable accommodation points, this will help them identify alternative accommodation or appropriate interventions/support to remain in their current home.

We believe that, in the context of the wider proposals for change, this service is a more appropriate method to address unsuitable accommodation than a points change.

71 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

ALLOCATION STAGE PROPOSALS

What is the allocation process?

When a property becomes available (or is doing enables a chain of moves that will about to be) the Housing Officer will: ultimately house an applicant with greater • consider who has applied for and housing need. The property might be is eligible for that size of property allocated to a ‘management transfer’- an in that area. applicant who needs to move for specified housing management reasons, for example • usually offer the property to the if their house is in a redevelopment area. applicant with the highest points for whom the property is suitable (i.e. in the applicant’s area of choice and with the Some properties are difficult to let, in other correct number of bedrooms). words they have to be offered to many applicants before someone accepts. This is not satisfactory as the landlord loses rental If the applicant accepts the property, that income and a property lies empty when it completes the allocation and they will could be meeting housing need. In such become the new tenant. If they do not circumstances the landlord can decide accept, it will be offered to the applicant to allocate by multiple offers. This means who has the second-highest points and they ask up to ten applicants at a time so on. to express an interest in a property. The property is allocated to the applicant with It is not always quite as straightforward the most points who expresses an interest. as allocating the property to the highest- pointed applicant. The property may go to a transfer applicant with fewer points, if so

72 A focus on meeting need

Despite the many new social homes that The Department has been proactive in are built each year, it is still the case that increasing the supply of social housing. there are not enough social homes to meet Substantial amounts of investment were demand. The total number of applicants directed to the delivery of new social on the waiting list (with no existing NIHE homes during the 2011-2016 mandate or Housing Association tenancy) at 31 and 8,000 new starts were delivered. March 2016 was 37,586. Of these, 22,645 However, even the most ambitious building applicants were in housing stress, i.e. they programme will leave some demand had more than 30 points under the Selection unmet. In that context it is important that Scheme. The number of properties allocated allocations work as efficiently and quickly by the NIHE and Housing Associations to as possible to house applicants in the applicants on the waiting list who were not greatest need. Even if a property is low- already social sector tenants was 7,805 demand, it is important that the time (73% of total allocations) in 2015-16. In spent empty is minimised. comparison, the number of properties allocated by the NIHE and Housing This section includes proposals which should Associations to tenants who had applied make it quicker and easier to let properties for a transfer from an existing tenancy was to the applicant in most need, particularly 2,897 (27% of total allocations). 9 where applicants in high need have been waiting a long time for an allocation.

The Key Proposals are:

10. The Selection Scheme should place applicants into bands based on similar levels of need to meet longstanding housing need more effectively.

11. The Selection Scheme should always align the number of bedrooms a household is assessed to need with the size criteria for eligible Housing Benefit customers.

9 DfC NI Housing Statistics 2015-16 page 56 www.communities-ni.gov.uk/publications/northern-ireland-housing-statistics-2015-16

73 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

12. For difficult-to-let properties: Social landlords should be able to make multiple offers to as many applicants as they think necessary.

13. For difficult-to-let properties: Social landlords should be able to use choice- based letting.

14. For difficult-to-let properties: Social landlords should be able to go direct to multiple offers if they have evidence that a property will be difficult to let.

15. An applicant may receive two reasonable offers of accommodation.

16. Social landlords may withdraw an offer of accommodation in specified circumstances.

17. Social landlords can withhold consent for a policy succession or assignment to a general needs social home in limited circumstances where there is evidence an applicant needs it.

18. Social landlords can withhold consent for a policy succession or assignment of adapted accommodation or purpose-built wheelchair standard accommodation where there is evidence an applicant needs it.

19. Updating the Selection Scheme to bring it in line with developments in Public Protection Arrangements Northern Ireland.

20. Specialised properties should be allocated by a separate process outside the Selection Scheme.

74 Proposal 10: - The Selection Scheme should place applicants into bands based on similar levels of need to meet longstanding housing need more effectively

The principle of the Selection Scheme is current Selection Scheme. However, there that homes should be allocated to the is a disadvantage to allocating purely households in greatest need. The evidence according to points. An applicant in high suggests that some households with high need who has waited a long time for a levels of need are waiting for long periods social home can be overtaken by new of time, particularly in high-demand areas applicants who may only have a few more (see Annex B for a note on the key findings points. The proposal to group applicants of NIHE’s 2015 Modelling Exercise). The with similar levels of need (still measured Selection Scheme needs to address this objectively by points) should allow greater more effectively. weight to be given to the amount of time an applicant has been in housing need. The objective measurement of need by points is recognised as a strength of the

How it works now

Currently when a social home becomes need after they have spent two years on available for an allocation it will generally the waiting list. be offered to the relevant applicant with the most points (with reference to suitable While it is right that allocations should size and area of choice). prioritise need, there is a concern that applicants in high levels of need are Waiting time is given fairly low priority in spending a long time on the waiting list the current Selection Scheme, with only because recent applicants with more points two points per year (for a maximum of five constantly ‘overtake’ them. years) awarded to applicants in housing

75 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

The proposal

When an applicant (or a transfer applicant) Bands Housing need applies for a social home (or an existing applicant has a change of circumstances) their need should continue to be assessed 130 points plus using the points system. Their points should 1100-129 points then be used to place them into a band with other applicants who have a similar level 70-99 points of points (need). The Department suggests the following band boundaries, to reflect 30-69 points households with: • No housing need (0 points); 1-29 points

• Some need, but not in housing stress 0 points (1-29 points); • Housing stress, but below the level of 70 points awarded to Full Duty Applicants (30-69 points); • housing need (70-99 points); • a high level of housing need (100-129 points); and • a very high level of housing need (130+ points).

76 Ulster University’s Report 1 (page 71)10 included data on housing applicants by number of points. This gives an approximate indication of how many households might be in each of the Department’s proposed bands. (Note: data is not available for 100- 129 and 130+ points.)

Points No. of % Households 0 8,090 19

1-29 11,106 27

30-69 8,913 21

70-99 5,129 12

100-149 6,779 16

150+ 1,854 4

Under the new system when a property in a higher band the date used to decide becomes available it should go to the allocation should be the date that their applicant who has waited the longest in circumstances changed. the highest need band. To maintain the importance of waiting times, there should Need should still be measured objectively, be special rules for how to deal with but applicants who have waited a long change of circumstances. If the applicant’s time should be allocated homes before points put them in a lower band they newer applicants with a broadly similar should keep the application date they had level of need. in the higher band. If their points put them

10 Data as at 1 January 2013. www.communities-ni.gov.uk/publications/fundamental-review-social-housing-allocations-policy

77 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Applicant A

SUITABLE PROPERTY BECOMES 2008: Awarded 130 points AVAILABLE IN 2018 Under the current system Applicant B would be offered the property

Under the proposed system Applicant B Applicant A should be offered the property - This is because they have waited longer in the 130+ band 2014: Awarded 140 points

Under our proposal, an applicant awarded If this Proposal is adopted the current 130 points in 2008 would be offered an points awarded for Time in Housing Need allocation before an applicant who was would be removed from the Scheme. awarded 140 points in 2014. This is because Transitional measures for applicants with their level of need is similar but the first these points will be considered during applicant has waited longer at that level implementation. of need.

78 The evidence for proposal 10

Ulster University recommended that NIHE MODELLING OF THE IMPACTS OF Northern Ireland should have a ‘banding’ BANDING, USING A COMBINATION OF system. These systems are quite common POINTS AND TIME ON WAITING LIST in Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland. Applicants are usually placed in bands The Department asked NIHE to model the according to broad written descriptions of impacts of two key proposed changes: their needs. Social homes are offered to the allocations on the basis of bands and the applicant in the appropriate band who has removal of the intimidation points. They been waiting the longest. carried out the modelling in three stages; considering the impact of: There was some support for this 1. Allocating from bands of applicants proposal when the Ulster University based on similar levels of need by time recommendations were published. There on the waiting list. was also concern that a banded system 2. Either removing the 200 intimidation may not accurately reflect objective levels points altogether or reducing them of need. Some respondents thought that significantly, from 200 to 40 points better measured the difference (proposal 7). between individuals’ circumstances. Other respondents felt that bands would be 3. Allocating from bands with intimidation better because similar need is grouped and points removed. then offers are made in date order. The focus of this section is stages one and Our proposed hybrid system uses points three, i.e. the impact of using bands, and instead of the more commonly-used using bands combined with removal of written descriptions to place people in intimidation points. bands. This proposal attempts to gain the benefits of points (objective measurement The NIHE compared the actual allocations of need) with the benefit of bands made over a month in 2015 to the (recognition of waiting time for applicants allocations that would have been made in similar levels of need). if bands (using a combination of points and time on waiting list) had been in

79 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

place. NIHE looked at three areas with the The following example cases - of real-life following characteristics: applicants who were allocated a home or • An urban area (high demand); were on the waiting list - illustrate how the current scheme works. A note on the key • An urban area (low demand); and findings of NIHE’s 2015 modelling exercise • An urban area (with rural hinterland). can be found in Annex B and detailed results of the NIHE 2015 modelling exercise for banding in Annex C.

Case Studies: How the current scheme works

Case: 1 Applicant A 2 YEARS ON LIST 180 POINTS HOUSE ALLOCATED

2000 2001 20022003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Applicant B 15 YEARS ON LIST 150 POINTS REMAINS ON LIST

2000 2001 20022003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Under the current scheme Applicant A received a home with 180 points. Despite 15 years on the list, Applicant B did not have enough points to move off the list. Applicant B will not necessarily move closer to allocation, as any applicant with more points will receive an allocation ahead of them.

80 Case: 2 Applicant A 2 YEARS ON LIST 140 POINTS HOUSE ALLOCATED

2000 2001 20022003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Applicant B 7 YEARS ON LIST 130 POINTS REMAINS ON LIST

2000 2001 20022003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Under the current scheme Applicant A received a home with 140 points. Despite 7 years on the list, Applicant B did not have enough points to move off the list. Applicant B will not necessarily move closer to allocation, as any applicant with more points will receive an allocation ahead of them.

Case: 3 Applicant A 1 YEAR ON LIST 97 POINTS HOUSE ALLOCATED

2000 2001 20022003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Applicant B 9 YEARS ON LIST 92 POINTS REMAINS ON LIST

2000 2001 20022003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

81 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Under the current scheme Applicant A In the low-demand urban area: received a home with 97 points. Despite 9 • The impact was more muted with 9 years on the list, Applicant B did not have cases where the person who would have enough points to move off the list. Applicant got the house under the new scheme B will not necessarily move closer to being the same as the person who got allocation, as any applicant with more points the house. will receive an allocation ahead of them. • In the remaining 20 cases, the person who would have got the house under The sample size of this exercise was small the new scheme had been on the and not necessarily representative of waiting list on average for two and a allocations as a whole. However, broadly half years longer than the person who speaking the modelling exercise confirmed got the house. that this proposal would work as intended to increase the importance given to time In the urban area with rural hinterland: spent waiting in housing need. Waiting • The person who would have got the time alone would not guarantee an house under the new scheme had allocation in a high-demand area, as waited on average three years longer the applicant would need to be in a high than the person who got the house. enough band.

In both the low-demand urban and the In the high-demand urban area: urban area with rural hinterland locations: • The scale of the proposed change • The points difference between the (i.e. giving greater priority to people person who would have got the house who have waited for a long time) was under the new scheme and the person particularly marked. who got the house were generally very • The person who got the house generally low, but the person who would have got had more points. the house under the new scheme had • On average, across one month’s waited years longer. allocations, the person who would have got the house under the bands system In its report on the modelling exercise had waited ten years longer than the (Annex D), NIHE recommended that it actual applicant. would be appropriate to conduct further, more comprehensive modelling; perhaps in one of their busier local offices.

82 The Department believes that this proposal: WHAT TENANTS THINK • Maintains the principle of allocation on The NIHE interviewed 100 recently- the basis of greatest need but allows for allocated tenants and 67% agreed that consideration of the time spent at that people who had spent a long time waiting level of need; and for a home should be allocated ahead of • Delivers the precise assessment of need other applicants with similar levels of need. of the points system, but should address For full details see Annex A. the impact of the current Selection Scheme, where some applicants are experiencing very long waiting times, despite being in a high level of need.

Expected outcome of proposal 10

This proposal should contribute to the This measure should give greater priority to following high level outcome: those applicants who have spent the longest • Those in greatest housing need receive time in a high degree of housing need. If this priority, with recognition of their time proposal is implemented, it should mean in need. that over time, there should be a reduction in the number of applicants in high need who have been waiting a very long time.

83 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations Lettings Manager identifies Manager identifies Lettings which of these applicants 3 bedrooms require No No No No Are there any applicants in the 30 - 69 points band? in the 30 - 69 points applicants any there Are Are there any applicants in the 70 – 99 points band? in the 70 – 99 points applicants any there Are Are there any applicants in the 130 points plus band? in the 130 points applicants any there Are Are there any applicants in the under 30 points band? in the under 30 points applicants any there Are Are there any applicants in the 100 -129 points band? in the 100 -129 points applicants any there Are Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Lettings Manager identifies Manager identifies Lettings who wish to rent applicants x in area Lettings Manager Lettings the property offers who to the applicant longest has waited in that band. No Yes Does applicant Does applicant accept the offer of the property? 3 bedroom property property bedroom 3 becomes available x letting in area for This is not a systematic, step-by-step description of what would actually description of what would happen step-by-step This is not a systematic, Home allocated Home allocated to this applicant Allocations System - A simplified model System Allocations with banding system of allocations Note: but it captures the relevant factors. the relevant but it captures

84 Proposal 11: - The Selection Scheme rules should always align the number of bedrooms a household is assessed to need with the size criteria for eligible Housing Benefit11 customers

This means: • It is not proposed to: • The ages at which children are expected - treat applicants differently depending to share a bedroom in the Selection on whether or not they receive help Scheme should match the sharing ages with housing costs (such as Housing for Housing Benefit / Universal Credit Benefit or the housing costs of purposes; Universal Credit); • The criteria for when an extra bedroom - treat applicants differently depending is required in the Selection Scheme on whether or not they are eligible to should match the criteria for Housing receive help with housing costs; or Benefit / Universal Credit purposes; - only place applicants in • In the future, the Selection Scheme accommodation that is at the should be updated so that the size bedroom requirement. criteria continue to match those used • At allocation stage social landlords for Housing Benefit / Universal Credit can determine, in discussion with purposes; applicants, whether flexibility is • All of the above will determine how appropriate (either for the reasons set many rooms a household is determined out below, or for other reasons). This to need; means that households may continue • This proposal only relates to how the to be allocated a home larger than their number of bedrooms a household will needs, if this is appropriate. need is determined;

11 Or the Housing Cost element of Universal Credit

85 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

How it works now

The Selection Scheme sets out the number • Where a property has special features of bedrooms a household needs, referred / adaptations which would particularly to as the Bedroom Standard. Currently this meet the needs of the applicant or means that two children of different genders applicant’s household. are expected to share a bedroom up to the • Parents who need an additional age of 7 years, while children of any age of bedroom to facilitate access the same gender are expected to share a arrangements to children who do not bedroom up to the age of 18 years. permanently live with them. • In areas of low-demand, where housing LANDLORDS CAN ALLOCATE HOUSEHOLDS need has been met. AN EXTRA BEDROOM IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. Since 2012 all prospective tenants have The NIHE recognise that there are been advised when accommodation is circumstances where a landlord may offered that they will need to consider how decide to make an allocation which they would meet any potential shortfall is above the bedroom standard for in rent as a result of a Housing Benefit good housing management reasons. restriction. For example: • Where smaller accommodation, particularly one bedroom accommodation does not exist or is not available.

86

Social Sector Size Criteria has changed how Housing Benefit is calculated for tenants in social housing. Social Sector Size Criteria is sometimes called the ‘Bedroom Tax’.

Under the new criteria, Housing Benefit will be calculated on the number of bedrooms in a home and the number of people living there.

THE NEW CRITERIA ALLOW ONE BEDROOM FOR: • a couple; • a person aged 16 or over; • two children of the same gender aged under 16; • two children aged under 10; • any other child (other than a foster child or child whose main home is elsewhere); • children who can’t share because of a disability or medical condition; or • a non-resident carer or carers providing overnight care.

Some other households might be allowed an extra bedroom.

If a household is assessed as having one or more extra bedrooms, the amount of Housing Benefit it receives will go down.

Housing Benefit allowed for rent and certain service charges will reduce by: • 14 per cent if there is one extra bedroom; and • 25 per cent if there are two or more extra bedrooms.

If Housing Benefit goes down due to Social Sector Size Criteria, tenants will receive a Welfare Supplementary Payment until 31 March 2020.

87 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

The proposal

It is proposed that the NIHE should always allocations policy with Housing Benefit align the number of bedrooms the Selection regulations and ensure, so far as reasonably Scheme Rules say a household needs with practical, that new allocations make best Housing Benefit regulations. use of housing stock.

This means expecting two children of The Selection Scheme’s rules determining different genders to share up to the age whether a household is classified as of 10 years and children of any age of overcrowded or under-occupied should also the same gender up to 16 years old. The be brought into line with the age criteria for Selection Scheme should say that any Housing Benefit. person 16 or over requires a room of their own (unless they share it with a partner). In 2012, the NIHE consulted on a number of proposals to ensure the best management This proposed change will mean younger of social housing stock, given the changes to children of different genders will be housing benefit / bedroom standard.12 The expected to share a bedroom for longer, proposals aim to be beneficial to tenants until age 10. On the other hand, it will be enabling greater flexibility in certain cases, more generous for older children who will and beneficial to landlords enabling better be assessed as requiring their own bedroom housing management. from age 16. This change would align the

12 www.nihe.gov.uk/the_housing_selection_scheme_consultation_paper.pdf

88

NIHE 2012 CONSULTATION: FLEXIBILITIES TO ADDRESS UNDER OCCUPATION

THE CONSULTATION PROPOSALS INCLUDED : a. flexibility in the Selection Scheme to make allocations to applicants who do not meet the minimum bedroom requirements in difficult-to-let areas or properties; and b. flexibility in the Selection Scheme to make allocations to certain applicants of one bedroom more than their minimum requirements, to facilitate access to children or for good housing management reasons, including: - where smaller accommodation does not exist or turnover of smaller sized accommodation is very low; or - where a property has special features / adaptations which would particularly meet the needs of the applicant’s household. c. a relaxation of the transfer : new applicant ratio and a new management transfer category to address the needs of tenants who are under-occupying and seeking to move to a smaller more affordable property; and d. a commitment to keep the changes under review.

Note: Where a tenant is offered a home with an extra bedroom NIHE recommended that working age tenants in receipt of housing benefit should be advised before they accept any offer of accommodation that they will need to consider how they would meet any potential shortfall in rent if their Housing Benefit provides for fewer bedrooms than the number in their proposed home.

While NIHE has already consulted on these proposals, the Department is mindful that policy continues to develop and therefore the proposals published in 2012 should be kept under consideration. In particular, if a new management transfer category is introduced to enable tenants who are under-occupying to move to a smaller property, it may also be appropriate to provide for tenants who are over-crowded to move to a more suitable property as management transfers. If any of the 2012 proposals are implemented, they will be kept under review as policy on this issue develops.

89 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

The evidence for proposal 11

The majority of social tenants (around It could be confusing for applicants who 76%) receive either full or partial Housing are entitled to full Housing Benefit to be Benefit. In NIHE homes, around 62% of allocated through the Selection Scheme to households receive full Housing Benefit a home where Housing Benefit did not cover and 14% partial Housing Benefit, while in their rent. The Selection Scheme needs to Housing Association homes, the figures are be consistent with Housing Benefit and the approximately 52% and 24% respectively. Housing Cost element of Universal Credit.

Expected outcome of proposal 11

This proposal should contribute to the Housing Cost element of Universal Credit following high level outcome: should ensure a more consistent approach, • An improved system for the most avoid confusion for applicants and enable vulnerable applicants. good housing management. Aligning the bedroom requirements and the overcrowding rules, for the Selection Scheme with those of Housing Benefit or the

90 Proposals 12-14: - For difficult-to-let properties: social landlords should have a wider range of options when making an allocation

PROPOSAL 12: For difficult-to-let properties: Social landlords should be able to make multiple offers to as many applicants as they think necessary.

PROPOSAL 13 – For difficult-to-let properties: Social landlords should be able to use choice-based letting.

PROPOSAL 14 – For difficult-to-let properties: Social Landlords should be able to go direct to multiple offers if they have evidence that a property will be difficult to let.

How it works now

Northern Ireland has a direct letting the property. This can happen, for example, Selection Scheme. When a property if the applicants with the most points turn becomes available it is normally offered to the property down: under the Selection the highest pointed applicant for whom it is Scheme, they must normally be offered the suitable. Landlords only offer the property property before other applicants. This can to the next person on the waiting list for lead to properties being empty for a longer that area if the first applicant refuses it. time than necessary, not meeting housing Direct lettings are particularly useful for need and the landlord losing rental income. homes where there are likely to be very few refusals and offering it to multiple If a property is difficult to let (maybe applicants may lead to disappointment. because of its condition, its size, its history or its location) the landlord can decide Unfortunately direct lettings can slow to let it by multiple offers. The Selection allocations down if many applicants refuse Scheme allows the landlord to ask up

91 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

to a maximum of ten applicants at the The NIHE, along with a number of Housing same time if they would be interested in Associations, has run a choice-based letting the property. The property is offered to pilot in some areas of Northern Ireland, the applicant with the most points who as an alternative way to allocate difficult- expresses an interest. (The applicant can see to-let properties. In this system applicants the property first before accepting the offer). can see all the properties available through choice-based letting (in the pilot this was via PropertyNews.com) and can register Multiple offers are a suitable way of dealing interest in the ones they like. The landlord with properties which are difficult to let, but will allocate the property to the relevant can also take time if none of the applicants applicant with the most points who has accept. Under the current rules of the shown an interest. The difference between Selection Scheme, a property can only be this and multiple offers is that all applicants let by multiple offers if it has failed to be let can see all the choice-based letting by direct letting over a number of weeks. properties which may be suitable for them. This is a waste of a valuable housing asset, With multiple offers the landlord contacts both for the landlord and for the potential only the highest pointed applicants. tenants. In many cases it is predictable that Currently choice-based letting can only be a property will be difficult to let because used in the pilot areas that the NIHE has similar properties in that area have proved identified and the Department approved. difficult to let.

The proposals

The Selection Scheme ensures that and their knowledge of local demand for landlords allocate their homes on the basis properties and areas. As long as landlords of housing need. A speedy allocation is in allocate according to housing need, they the interest of both the applicant and the should have more discretion over what landlord. We propose that landlords should method is best to allocate a property i.e. to have more discretion over which method offer it directly to one applicant at a time of allocations they use for difficult-to-let (direct letting), through multiple offers or properties. This should depend on evidence through choice-based letting.

92 There are three specific proposals: particularly where some applicants 12. For difficult-to-let properties: Social may have a higher need for support. landlords should be able to make You can find examples of support in the multiple offers to as many applicants independent academic reports (pages as they think necessary. The number 33-37 of Report 2 and pages 42-51 of 13 of applicants contacted should be the Final Report). The housing advice the number they think most likely to service should also be an effective secure an allocation, beginning with the mechanism to explain choice-based applicants who have waited the longest letting to potential applicants. Landlords in the highest priority band. must allow people to show interest in choice-based letting properties through a range of communication methods; 13. For difficult-to-let properties: Social particularly those applicants who do landlords should be able to use not have access to a computer or cannot choice-based letting. This should be use one. an alternative to multiple offers and used in similar circumstances. The Department believes that landlords 14. For difficult-to-let properties: Social have the knowledge to decide whether landlords should be able to go direct choice-based letting or multiple offers to multiple offers if they have evidence is the best solution for a particular that a property will be difficult to let. property. Landlords using choice-based Such evidence would mainly come from letting must ensure that everyone on the previous similar properties being difficult waiting list who is interested in housing to let. in that area is advised that properties may be advertised using choice-based Whichever method is used, the property letting. Landlords must ensure that must ultimately go to the applicant in enough support is given to applicants the highest need who is interested in to enable them to express an interest, that property.

13 www.communities-ni.gov.uk/publications/fundamental-review-social-housing-allocations-policy

93 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

The evidence for proposals 12-14

The NIHE has asked the Department to ‘multiple offer’ system, and to test the increase the number of offers that can be practicalities of choice-based letting in made for difficult-to-let properties because terms of advertising online, managing of difficulties they have experienced in registrations of interest, time taken to re-let operating multiple offers. They believe properties and so on. While still a need- increasing the number of potential applicants based approach, because the pilot is an for such properties should increase the exception to the usual operating rules of likelihood of a speedy allocation. the Selection Scheme it was restricted to specific low-demand areas. Ulster University recommended a choice- based letting system for Northern Ireland In late 2014, the NIHE reported to the with the ability to still make direct lets in Department on the first 30 weeks of the certain circumstances. Ulster University pilot (up to August 2014) and advised that: pointed out that choice-based letting is in • 171 properties had been advertised, use in many areas in the United Kingdom across 6 NIHE local offices and 19 and Republic of Ireland. Many people here Common Landlord Areas; were supportive of this recommendation. • Of these 171, 80% were successfully However, many felt choice-based letting allocated following one advertisement would not work for all properties and that of the property under choice-based some applicants would need support to use letting (the remainder were re- the system. There was greater support for advertised); the use of choice-based letting in allocating • 148 properties were allocated by difficult-to-let properties. December 2014 (the remainder were being re-advertised or awaiting The NIHE and some other social landlords commencement of tenancy work); have used choice-based letting in pilot • 1,473 bids were made for the 148 areas since January 2014. The pilot was properties (an average of 10 bids per set up to test the choice-based letting property); approach as an alternative to the allocation of difficult-to-let properties under the

94 • The type of applicants who were • 88% found the process easy; and successful in being allocated a property • 83% of participants believed the were: scheme was fair. - 26 successful applicants (18%) had more than 100 points The pilot has continued to run since this - 60 successful applicants (41%) had initial report. As at October 2016, it has between 30-100 points involved approximately 600 properties. It - 49 successful applicants (33%) had is currently operating in specific locations between 1-29 points within 4 local areas. - 13 successful applicants (9%) had no points 14 In summary, the NIHE has reported that choice-based letting has been very useful as an option in certain circumstances in • Bids were made as follows: the efficient allocation of dwellings that are - 54% by email difficult to let. Some Housing Associations - 40% by telephone also participated in the choice-based - 6% in person at the local office letting pilot.

• Re-let times for properties reduced from The Department also conducted further desk an average of 59 days for the ‘multiple research internally to look at allocations offer’ approach, to 50 days under systems elsewhere. A summary of our choice-based letting; and findings can be found on the Department’s • In terms of having a wider choice of area website at: under choice-based letting (a benefit emphasised by Ulster University’s Report www.communities-ni.gov.uk/allocations- 1, pages 42-43), in the pilot, 34% of review properties allocated were to applicants who had successfully bid for a property The Department did not find strong that was outside their chosen area. support for choice-based letting in all circumstances but the benefits of choice- The NIHE surveyed those who participated in based letting for difficult-to-let properties the pilot and found that: seemed clear. • 93% felt that the scheme improved their chances of being re-housed;

14 The results broadly compare to the waiting list as a whole. Ulster University’s Report 1 (2013) showed that: 20% of all applicants on the waiting list had over 100 points; 34% had 30-99 points; 27% had 1-29 points and 19% had no points (page 71). www.communities-ni.gov.uk/publications/fundamental-review-social-housing-allocations-policy

95 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Expected outcome of proposals 12-14

These proposals should contribute to the should ensure that difficult-to-let properties following high level outcome: are let more quickly. They may increase the likelihood and speed of allocation for applicants in lower housing need. Those in • Better use of public resources by greatest housing need must continue to ensuring the list moves smoothly. receive priority, with recognition of their time in need, as properties let by multiple The proposals aim to minimise the time that offer or choice-based letting should still go stock is empty by facilitating the allocation to the applicant (who has shown an interest of all types of properties, including those in the property) in the highest band who has that are difficult to let. These measures waited longest.

96 Proposal 15: - An applicant may receive two reasonable offers of accommodation

How it works now

When a property becomes available the will not be offered any further properties for NIHE or Housing Associations normally make one year from the date of the last refusal. offers to the applicant with the most points (Note: It is not a refusal if someone does who has selected that area as one of their not express an interest in a property let by areas of choice and who requires that size multiple offers.) and type of accommodation. The applicant can accept the offer or refuse it. If refused, The NIHE conducted research into how the home will then be offered to the person many applicants refuse offers, and why. with the next highest amount of points. The first phase of the research found that, This process continues until the property is in 2006/7, 16,300 offers were made to let. If a property is not let after four weeks allocate 4,700 properties, i.e. for every offer the landlord can allocate by multiple offers of housing accepted, two were refused.15 instead (see proposals 12-14). Every offer takes time, which means that refusals can leave available properties empty An applicant can receive three offers. If for longer, applicants waiting longer for a they refuse the third reasonable offer, they home and the landlord losing rental income.

15 Ulster University’s Final Report, page 56 at: www.communities-ni.gov.uk/publications/fundamental-review-social-housing- allocations-policy

97 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

The proposal

We propose that an applicant should The negative impact of this change on receive only two reasonable offers of applicants is balanced by the increase of accommodation. choice they will have (see proposal 5) over the areas where they would wish to live. Use of a housing advice service should If the two offers are refused, no further also reduce refusals, as applicants will offers will be made for one year after the have considered their options fully before date of the last refusal. applying for a social home.

The current one year suspension from the Safeguards would still be in place for waiting list would be applied if an applicant applicants to ask for a review of an offer refuses two reasonable offers. if they feel it to have been unreasonable. The current practice around what is a reasonable or unreasonable offer should not change.

98 The evidence for proposal 15

Ulster University recommended this Of those who did not accept the first proposal. Of the 13 responses the property they were offered: Department received on this issue, 9 were • 10 had refused one property; and in favour, including all the social landlords • 12 had refused two properties before who responded. accepting an offer.

WHAT TENANTS THINK The NIHE also asked about reasons for The NIHE asked 100 recently-allocated refusal: of those who had refused an offer, tenants about their experience of refusals. the most common reason given (15 of 25 It did not ask for any detail about whether respondents) was that the property was offers were reasonable, whether they not within their area(s) of choice. For full were challenged as unreasonable, or details see questions and responses in full whether the offers were multiple offers. at Annex A. The survey showed: • 72 tenants had accepted the first property they were offered;

Expected outcome of proposal 15

This proposal should contribute to the landlords should have a wider range of following high level outcome: options when allocating difficult-to-let • Better use of public resources by properties), this proposal should, over time, ensuring that the list moves smoothly. reduce the number of refusals of property, which should in turn minimise the time that stock is empty. Combined with proposal 5 (a greater choice of areas for all applicants for a social home), and proposals 12-14 (social

99 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Proposal 16: - Social landlords may withdraw an offer of accommodation in specified circumstances

How it works now

An offer of a social home can be withdrawn 5. If the applicant does not accept in the following circumstances: the landlord’s general conditions of tenancy. 1. If the information supplied by the 6. If the applicant does not consent to applicant is not true, correct and and comply with the landlord’s ID complete. requirements. 2. If the applicant has not notified the landlord of any change in their There is currently no explicit provision in circumstances or the information they the Selection Scheme that sets out the gave before accepting the offer. circumstances in which a social landlord 3. If the property offered will not be vacant may withdraw an offer of accommodation. and available for occupation on a specified date. In addition to the above, there may be 4. If the offer is to a current NIHE / other reasons when a social landlord Housing Association tenant who has considers it appropriate to withdraw an not provided written notice of the offer of accommodation. termination of their existing tenancy to their landlord and returned the keys.

100 The proposal

A new rule should be introduced to the 5. Where it is subsequently established Selection Scheme to allow offers to be that the applicant is no longer able withdrawn in the following circumstances: to take up occupancy of the property 1. Where the conditions of the letter of within a reasonable period of time. offer are not met / are breached. (e.g. a sentenced prisoner). 2. Where it is subsequently established that the offer has been made on the Withdrawing an offer of tenancy is a basis of a material error by the landlord. major decision with significant impact for 3. Where the offer is no longer considered a housing applicant. This new rule should reasonable under the rules of the ensure certainty and transparency by setting Selection Scheme on the basis of out the limited circumstances which would information becoming available any cause a landlord to withdraw an offer. time before commencement of tenancy. 4. Where the applicant’s immigration status or eligibility for an allocation has changed and they are no longer eligible at the point of allocation.

The evidence for proposal 16

The Scheme should make provision for issue of whether they remain on the list. The withdrawal of offers in a specified range proposal will provide for social landlords to of circumstances, such as those outlined have specific circumstances, set out in the above. Some of these circumstances have Selection Scheme, when they may withdraw arisen in the past. This proposal does not an offer that has been made. affect the eligibility of an applicant and the

101 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Expected outcomes of proposal 16

This proposal should contribute to the Clear provision setting out when an offer following high level outcomes: can be withdrawn will ensure that the • Those in greatest housing need receive Selection Scheme is fair and transparent. priority, with recognition of their time in It should enable better use of public need. resources and good housing management as homes will be made available for eligible • Better use of public resources by applicants in greatest need. ensuring that the list moves smoothly.

102 Proposals 17&18: - Circumstances where social landlords may withhold consent for a policy succession or assignment to a social home

PROPOSAL 17: Social landlords may withhold consent for a policy succession or assignment to a general needs social home in limited circumstances (such as potential under-occupation or overcrowding) where there is evidence an applicant needs it.

How it works now

Rules 74, 75 and 77 of the Selection However, decisions to award a tenancy Scheme16 provide for specific circumstances to an applicant who meets the policy where a person who does not have a assignment and succession criteria may statutory entitlement to a succession or not make best use of stock and may result assignment may be awarded a tenancy. in under-occupation or overcrowding for the new tenant. The proposal

The relevant rules should be amended to with an extra bedroom(s), prospective clarify that landlords may decide to withhold tenants should be advised that they will consent in circumstances where the new need to consider how they would meet any tenancy is likely to, or would, result in under- potential shortfall in rent if their Housing occupation or overcrowding, and where Benefit provides for fewer bedrooms than there is evidence that an applicant on the the number in their proposed home. waiting list is in need of the property. There is more information about the Social Note: where a tenant is awarded a policy Sector Size Criteria under proposal 11. succession or assignment to a home

16 The Scheme Rules are available at: www.nihe.gov.uk/housing_selection_scheme_rules.pdf

103 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

PROPOSAL 18: Social landlords may withhold consent for a policy succession or assignment of adapted accommodation or purpose-built wheelchair standard accommodation where there is evidence an applicant needs it.

How it works now

People who require wheelchair who requires them. It may apply if the accommodation are currently waiting a landlord can identify an applicant on the long time for a social home that meets waiting list who needs the property based their needs: approximately three months on its specific features. So there is provision longer than applicants for ‘general needs’ in law for a social landlord to apply for accommodation. According to the NIHE, possession of an adapted home, if there is wheelchair users have to wait on average evidence that someone on the waiting list 24 months (Median average as at 31 needs that adapted property. March 2016) to be housed in accessible accommodation compared to 21 months In addition, the Selection Scheme allows for general needs applicants. This situation management transfers for “transfer needs to change: in addition to providing applicants residing in purpose-built or new wheelchair standard homes, more adapted accommodation who no longer effective use needs to be made of existing have a need for such accommodation”. accommodation. Wheelchair standard This enables the transfer of a tenant out of accommodation is more expensive to adapted accommodation and into another construct than general needs housing property, to make the accommodation requiring a higher rate of public subsidy available to an applicant who needs the in Social Housing Development grant (an adaptations. average of £55,000 more per property).

In practice, expecting tenants to move out The law (Ground 8 in Schedule 3 of the of adapted accommodation when it is no Housing (NI) Order 1983) deals with longer required is a sensitive and difficult situations where the tenancy of a house issue. The above provisions appear to be with disabled facilities provided is held by a rarely, if ever, used, for that reason. Some person who does not need those facilities, landlords focus on better communication and there is no member of their household to encourage tenants to move voluntarily.

104 A number of Housing Associations have As outlined above, under the current developed housing management tools Selection Scheme, such tenants may be to support people who no longer require awarded Management Transfer status, adapted accommodation. These primarily which can speed up their transfer to use effective communication and clear another social home and enable an tenancy agreements to emphasise to applicant in high housing need to access tenants the need to retain specialist the adapted accommodation they require. accommodation for those who need it.

The proposal

The Department is keen that all reasonable Where a tenant is awarded a policy steps are taken to ensure that adapted succession, or assignment to a home with homes are being used to meet the needs of an extra bedroom(s): tenants should be wheelchair users and their families. advised that they will need to consider how they would meet any potential shortfall in rent if their Housing Benefit provides for Therefore, in respect of policy succession fewer bedrooms than the number in their or assignment of a tenancy under rules proposed home. 74, 75 and 77 of the Selection Scheme, the relevant rules should be amended to provide that the landlord has discretion There is more information about the Social to withhold consent to succession or Sector Size Criteria under proposal 11. assignment where a property has been adapted or built to wheelchair standard, no one in the prospective successor or assignee household requires the adaptation, and there is evidence of high housing need in that area for a property with such features.

105 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

The evidence for proposals 17&18

In respect of general needs housing, some construct than general needs housing, areas of Northern Ireland, or some types of requiring a higher rate of public subsidy. stock, feature very high levels of demand, Achieving value for money depends on and consequently long waiting times. ensuring that this stock is occupied by In respect of adapted accommodation, those who need it. wheelchair users at present wait longer (approximately 3 months longer) than The Department aims to support social general needs applicants. It is therefore landlords to: important that social landlords have more • maximise the efficient use of stock; discretion to make the best use of high- demand or adapted stock. • ensure the best use of wheelchair standard housing stock; and • balance the needs of tenants against the In addition, wheelchair standard needs of applicants on the waiting list. accommodation is more expensive to

Expected outcomes of proposal 17

This proposal should contribute to the The proposal should ensure better housing following high level outcomes: management, making more effective use • Those in greatest housing need receive of general needs stock, particularly in areas priority, with recognition of their time of high demand, to reduce waiting times in need. for applicants. • Better use of public resources by ensuring the list moves smoothly.

106 Expected outcomes of proposal 18

This proposal should contribute to the following high level outcomes: • An improved system for the most vulnerable applicants. • Those in greatest housing need receive priority, with recognition of their time in need. • Better use of public resources by ensuring the list moves smoothly.

The objective is that the most effective use is made of existing adapted stock, and that waiting times for applicants requiring adapted accommodation are reduced.

107 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Proposal 19: - Updating the Selection Scheme to bring it in line with developments in Public Protection Arrangements Northern Ireland

How it works now

The Public Protection Arrangements in When making a decision on the suitability Northern Ireland (PPANI) (more information of an allocation the social landlord will take at: www.publicprotectionni.com) were into account individual circumstances and introduced in October 2008. They aim to the location of the accommodation. The make the work of the police, probation and social landlord may also take in account others more effective when managing the feedback from other statutory agencies risks posed by certain sexual and violent regarding the assessed level of risk. offenders when they are released from prison into the community. PPANI is not Since the introduction of the current a statutory body in itself but a structure Selection Scheme there have been a that enables agencies to undertake their number of legislative changes including statutory duties and coordinate their the management of risk in relation to functions to enhance public protection. individuals who have been charged or convicted of certain offences. The current Social landlords in Northern Ireland have an rules reflect the victim type rather than important role to play in the management the nature of the offence and the risks of of the risk posed by offenders and ensuring re-offending. Therefore, restrictions cannot that appropriate offers of accommodation be made in relation to allocations where an are made, taking into account both the individual has been charged or convicted needs of the individual and wider public with a sexual or violent offence against an protection issues. adult, despite there being a potential public protection issue and the accommodation being unsuitable in that particular instance. Currently, where an applicant has been convicted or charged with a sexual offence against a child which either has or could have received a custodial sentence, restrictions may be made by the social landlord.

108 Currently landlords ask applicants a offence to help identify those applicants general question if they or a member where social landlords may be required to of their household have been guilty of work with other relevant agencies to identify serious unacceptable behaviour. However, the most appropriate offer of housing. applicants are not directly asked if they or a member of their household has been charged or convicted of a sexual or violent

The proposal

The Selection Scheme Rules should be It is also proposed that additional questions updated to reflect more recent legislative are asked at application stage to help changes and widened to enable social identify which applicants (or members of landlords to make restrictions based on their household) may have been convicted the suitability of an allocation in relation to of, or charged with, any of the offences applicants (or a member of their household) listed above. that have been convicted or charged with: • A sexual offence against a child; The social landlord will have regard to • A sexual offence against an adult and whether the offender is risk assessed are subject to PPANI; and managed under PPANI when making • A violent offence against a child or restrictions. vulnerable adult and are subject to PPANI; • A violent offence in domestic or family circumstances and are subject to PPANI; or • A hate crime and are subject to PPANI.

109 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

The evidence for proposal 19

NIHE requested this change so that the Selection Scheme is in line with legislation and to ensure public protection.

The outcome of proposal 19

This proposal should contribute to the following high level outcome: • An improved system for the most vulnerable applicants.

It aims to ensure that applicants managed under PPANI are not allocated a permanent home which is not suitable taking into account their particular circumstances.

110 Proposal 20: - Specialised properties should be allocated by a separate process outside the Selection Scheme

How it works now

Most social homes are considered ‘general • Some young disabled adults who needs’ properties and are allocated within live with their parents in adapted the Selection Scheme. Sheltered housing accommodation want to move into is currently allocated within the Selection accommodation which supports their Scheme; however, other, specialised independence. They often cannot do so properties, including ‘housing with care’ are because they do not have enough points allocated under a separate, administrative, to secure appropriate independent non-pointed list. The people who need accommodation. these homes often have a complex • Most new social homes are built to needs assessment from the NIHE, as well Lifetime Homes standards, which as specific assessments for the type of meet the needs of ‘active elderly’ property. While an assessment is necessary households and other households that to determine the accommodation most require ground floor accommodation. suitable for their needs, the complex needs However, these standards do not match assessments can lead to delays for people the enhanced wheelchair accessibility who may have an urgent need to move. housing needs, for an increasing percentage of the population. Some of the issues raised by stakeholders • There is evidence that some older in respect of specialised accommodation applicants, applicants needing adapted include: homes, and applicants needing homes • As sheltered housing is allocated within that meet the wheelchair standard all the Selection Scheme, some Housing wait longer than the average applicant Associations have reported pressure to be allocated a home. to house people with needs that sheltered housing was not designed to accommodate.

111 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Given the range of issues identified, where are housed appropriately, they should not households require specialised – rather than have to ‘compete’ for specialised properties general needs – housing, they should receive against those who require general needs a bespoke, tenant-focused pathway to housing. access this accommodation. To ensure they

The proposal

Specialised accommodation should go to d) Properties designed or adapted to those who need it most. To ensure that meet the wheelchair accessible design this happens – that specialised property standard is ‘ring-fenced’ for those who need it – (currently allocated within the Selection the following property types should be Scheme) deemed specialist and should be allocated outside the main (general needs) Selection A time-bound review should be led Scheme: by social landlords, to determine how specialised properties should be allocated. a) ‘Housing with care’ and residential schemes In addition, when social housing providers (already allocated outside the Selection allocate these homes, they should employ Scheme) housing management tools – such as effective communication and clear b) Schemes for those people diagnosed tenancy agreements – to emphasise to with dementia new tenants the need to retain specialist accommodation for those who need it. (already allocated outside the Selection Scheme) Tenants should be made aware that they can transfer to general needs c) Sheltered housing accommodation if they no longer require (currently allocated within the Selection an adapted home. For this reason, it is Scheme) proposed that transfer applicants who wish to move to general needs accommodation,

112 freeing up a specialist home (i.e. one which For clarity, no change is proposed to should be allocated outside of the main ‘Lifetime Homes’, ground floor or level access Selection Scheme) should continue to be accommodation: unless accommodation is awarded Management Transfer status. specifically designed or adapted for specialist This should enable landlords to quickly or wheelchair use, it should be allocated via facilitate a transfer and make the adapted the Selection Scheme. accommodation available.

The evidence for proposal 20

Ulster University recommended a review WHAT TENANTS THINK of the classification of properties with The NIHE asked 100 recently-allocated specialised accommodation which would tenants about the circumstances which sit outside the principal scheme. This would make an allocation ‘essential’ or recommendation was extremely well ‘high priority’. The highest score for these supported, including by social landlords. combined categories was for applicants with serious medical or mobility needs.

For full details see Annex A.

113 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Expected outcomes of proposal 20

This proposal should contribute to the ‘Ring-fencing’ specialised homes for those following high level outcomes: who need them, and planning for new • An improved system for the most wheelchair standard accommodation vulnerable applicants. within the Social Housing Development Programme, should result in an improved • Better use of public resources by system for applicants who need specialised ensuring the waiting list moves housing. It should also make the waiting list smoothly. for general needs housing more accurate by allocating specialised properties outside the Selection Scheme.

Increasing the supply of wheelchair standard accommodation

The Department is keen to progress as Programme (SHDP). This should result in new quickly as possible with implementing wheelchair standard accommodation being the new wheelchair design standards and programmed more systematically within the taking a new approach to the construction SHDP based on NIHE’s needs analysis. This of wheelchair standard accommodation should help to address the waiting time for within the Social Housing Development this type of accommodation.

114 IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

Equality

Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act Under the statutory duties contained within 1998 requires each public authority, when Section 75, the Department carried out an carrying out its functions in relation to equality screening of the proposals. A copy Northern Ireland, to have due regard to the of the screening form can be found on the need to promote equality of opportunity Department’s website: www.communities- between nine categories of persons, namely ni.gov.uk/dfc-equality. • between persons of different religious belief, political opinion, racial We decided to conduct a full Equality group, age, marital status or sexual Impact Assessment (EQIA) because orientation; the decision to review the allocations • between men and women generally; scheme is an area of major social policy, • between persons with a disability and affecting over 10,000 households a year. persons without; and The screening suggested some potential adverse impacts and these required further • between persons with dependants and investigation. An EQIA will provide everyone persons without. with an interest in this area with the opportunity to tell us about any equality Without prejudice to its obligations above, concerns they have. the public authority must also have regard to the desirability of promoting good relations between persons of different religious belief, political opinion or racial group.

115 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Equality impact assessment

The draft EQIA consultation is available as provision of a housing advice service part of the formal consultation stage of the as at Proposal 1; EQIA relating to the Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations. A copy can (ii) Determine any impact as a result of be found on the Department’s consultation changes to the Selection Scheme by page along with other material relevant to monitoring waiting times for: this consultation: www.communities-ni.gov.uk/allocations- • key Section 75 groups to determine: review • if any impact is a result of removal of intimidation points from the The proposals in this consultation document Selection Scheme; were examined in light of information • if any impact is a result of removal obtained to assess whether or not there of interim accommodation points are actual or potential adverse impacts from the Selection Scheme; and on any of the nine Section 75 categories and to ascertain if action could be taken • if any impact is a result of giving to promote Equality of Opportunity and /or greater weight to time waiting. Good Relations. • those needing adapted stock; and • those requiring specialised properties. The draft EQIA sets out each of the proposals and provides detail of actual Note that key Section 75 groups are or potential adverse impact where it those in respect of religious belief, age, has been identified, mitigation where disability, dependants and ethnic group. appropriate and possible, and details of NIHE does not collect quantitative data further actions required. on sexual orientation or political opinion of households on the waiting list, but It proposes that the Department will take qualitative research may provide a means the following action in respect of the to monitor change. Gender and marital potential adverse impacts identified: status are less informative in the context of waiting lists as they only record the main (i) Provide a greater range of solutions applicant in a household. to meet housing need, specifically the

116 (iii) Undertake reviews to determine: • whether the impact of landlord • whether the impact of removing discretion over policy succession intimidation points reflects the / assignment reflects the desired desired outcome ; outcome of an improved system for the most vulnerable applicants; and • whether the impact of removing interim accommodation points reflects • how specialised properties should the desired outcome. In particular, be allocated. consideration should be given to whether average waiting times are falling for those in temporary accommodation or if further changes to the scheme are required;

117 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

EQIA Consultation Questions

We would very much welcome your responses to the following consultation questions:

1. Do you agree that the proposals will provide for a fairer and more transparent system of assessing housing need?

2. Do you agree with our assessment of impact as outlined in the draft EQIA?

3. Are there any other pieces of information and evidence relevant to the Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations that you would like us to consider?

4. Do you have any other comments/views on any aspect of our impact assessment?

How to respond

There are three ways you can tell us what WRITE TO US AT: you think about our proposals. Social Housing Policy Team Department for Communities RESPOND ONLINE AT: Level 3, Causeway Exchange www.communities-ni.gov.uk/allocations- 1-7 Bedford Street review Belfast BT2 7EG EMAIL US AT: [email protected] Please have all responses with us by Thursday 21st December 2017.

118 Other impact assessments

We have also published the findings of the These documents can be found on the following impact assessments: Department’s consultation page: • a Rural Needs Impact Assessment. This www.communities-ni.gov.uk/allocations- looks at the potential impacts of our review proposals on people living in rural areas. • a Social Inclusion Impact Assessment. This looks at the potential impacts of our proposals on poverty and social inclusion.

119 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

NEXT STEPS

The Department welcomes feedback in The Department believes that regular relation to these proposals for change reviews of the Scheme may be appropriate, and the draft Equality Impact Assessment for example based on five yearly data (EQIA). All responses will be analysed and on the operation of the Scheme and used, as appropriate, to shape the final the changing levels of housing need in recommendations. Northern Ireland.

Following the end of the consultation period the Department will: • Collate and analyse consultation responses; • publish a response report (all responses may be published in full or in summary form); • Finalise proposals and the EQIA; and • Agree an implementation plan with NIHE (an indicative timescale for each proposal is at Annex E).

120 Consultation questions

Have your say on changes to the Housing Selection Scheme

121 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

1. An independent, tenure-neutral housing advice service for Northern Ireland. • People should receive high-quality, tailored, tenure-neutral advice in a way which respects their dignity and confidentiality.

Q1. Do you agree?

Strongly agree Agree Don’t mind Disagree Strongly Disagree

Any other comments?

......

......

2. An applicant who has been involved in unacceptable behaviour should not be eligible for social housing or Full Duty homelessness status unless there is reason to believe – at the time the application is considered – that the unacceptable behaviour is likely to cease. • There should be a focus on good housing management, sustainable tenancies and a deterrent against serious anti-social behaviour

Q1. Do you agree?

Strongly agree Agree Don’t mind Disagree Strongly Disagree

Any other comments?

......

......

122 3. NIHE may treat a person as ineligible for Full Duty homelessness status on the basis of their unacceptable behaviour at any time before allocating that person a social home. • This proposal should also ensure good housing management and aim to reduce nuisance to tenants; striking a better balance between excluding people from the waiting list and prioritising vulnerable groups.

Q1. Do you agree?

Strongly agree Agree Don’t mind Disagree Strongly Disagree

Any other comments?

......

......

......

4. NIHE can meet their duty to homeless applicants on a tenure-neutral basis, provided that the accommodation meets certain conditions • This proposal should ensure a greater range of ways in which the NIHE can meet its duty to homeless applicants and increase the options for meeting applicants’ housing need.

Q1. Do you agree?

Strongly agree Agree Don’t mind Disagree Strongly Disagree

Any other comments?

......

......

......

123 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

5. A greater choice of areas for all applicants for a social home. • All applicants should be able to choose as many (or as few) housing areas as they wish to maximise the likelihood of receiving an offer of a home they can accept.

Q1. Do you agree?

Strongly agree Agree Don’t mind Disagree Strongly Disagree

Any other comments?

......

......

......

6. Greater use of a mutual exchange service. • Existing social tenants looking for a transfer should ordinarily also be considered for a mutual exchange service.

Q1. Do you agree?

Strongly agree Agree Don’t mind Disagree Strongly Disagree

Any other comments?

......

......

......

124 7. The removal of intimidation points from the Selection Scheme • This would not affect the urgent help for those experiencing intimidation. Where a person is in danger the NIHE would remove them from that danger and offer alternative accommodation on an emergency basis. • This should recognise the housing need of intimidated households in a fairer and more proportionate way.

Q1. Do you agree?

Strongly agree Agree Don’t mind Disagree Strongly Disagree

Any other comments?

......

......

......

8. Points should reflect current circumstances for all applicants. • This should make the scheme fairer and more transparent to applicants as they know they will be assessed on their current circumstances. It should also maintain a focus on prioritising current housing needs.

Q1. Do you agree?

Strongly agree Agree Don’t mind Disagree Strongly Disagree

Any other comments?

......

......

......

125 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

9. The removal of Interim Accommodation points from the Selection Scheme This proposal aims to: • Provide more equal treatment of applicants in similar circumstances; • Ensure a more accurate waiting list that reflects current housing circumstances; and • Ensure those in greatest need receive priority.

Q1. Do you agree?

Strongly agree Agree Don’t mind Disagree Strongly Disagree

Any other comments?

......

......

......

10. The Selection Scheme should place applicants into bands based on similar levels of need to meet longstanding housing need more effectively • Applicants should be assessed and points awarded, just as they are in the Selection Scheme at present. The points should then be used to place applicants in bands, alongside others with similar levels of need.

Q1. Do you agree?

Strongly agree Agree Don’t mind Disagree Strongly Disagree

Any other comments?

......

......

......

126 11. The Selection Scheme Rules should always align the number of bedrooms a household is assessed to need with the size criteria for eligible Housing Benefit customers. • Aligning the Selection Scheme with Housing Benefit should ensure a consistent approach, avoid confusion for applicants and enable good housing management.

Q1. Do you agree?

Strongly agree Agree Don’t mind Disagree Strongly Disagree

Any other comments?

......

......

......

12 For difficult-to-let properties: Social landlords should be able to make multiple offers to as many applicants as they think necessary. • The number of applicants contacted should be the number the landlord thinks is most likely to secure an allocation.

Q1. Do you agree?

Strongly agree Agree Don’t mind Disagree Strongly Disagree

Any other comments?

......

......

......

127 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

13. For difficult-to-let properties: Social landlords should be able to use choice-based letting. • Landlords must ensure that enough support is given to applicants to enable them to express an interest.

Q1. Do you agree?

Strongly agree Agree Don’t mind Disagree Strongly Disagree

Any other comments?

......

......

......

14. For difficult-to-let properties: Social landlords should be able to go direct to multiple offers if they have evidence that a property will be difficult to let. • Such evidence would mainly come from previous similar properties being difficult to let.

Q1. Do you agree?

Strongly agree Agree Don’t mind Disagree Strongly Disagree

Any other comments?

......

......

......

128 15. An applicant may receive two reasonable offers of accommodation. • This proposal reduces the number of offers of accommodation from 3 to 2. • If the two offers are refused, no further offers will be made for one year after the date of the last refusal.

Q1. Do you agree?

Strongly agree Agree Don’t mind Disagree Strongly Disagree

Any other comments?

......

......

......

16 Social landlords may withdraw an offer of accommodation in specified circumstances. • This change is required to deal with a very specific, limited number of circumstances.

Q1. Do you agree?

Strongly agree Agree Don’t mind Disagree Strongly Disagree

Any other comments?

......

......

......

129 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

17. Social landlords may withhold consent for a policy succession or assignment to a general needs social home in limited circumstances where there is evidence an applicant needs it. • There should be a focus on good housing management and better use of public resources by enabling social landlords to make more effective use of general needs stock.

Q1. Do you agree?

Strongly agree Agree Don’t mind Disagree Strongly Disagree

Any other comments?

......

......

......

18. Social landlords may withhold consent for a policy succession or assignment of adapted accommodation or purpose built wheelchair standard accommodation where there is evidence an applicant needs it. • This proposal should ensure that the most effective use is made of existing adapted stock, and that waiting times for applicants requiring adapted accommodation are reduced.

Q1. Do you agree?

Strongly agree Agree Don’t mind Disagree Strongly Disagree

Any other comments?

......

......

......

130 19. Updating the Selection Scheme to bring it in line with developments in Public Protection Arrangements Northern Ireland. • The NIHE requested this change to bring the Selection Scheme in line with recent developments in legislation to enable social landlords to make restrictions to applicants (or a member of their household) who have been convicted or charged with a violent offence.

Q1. Do you agree?

Strongly agree Agree Don’t mind Disagree Strongly Disagree

Any other comments?

......

......

......

20. Specialised properties should be allocated by a separate process outside the Selection Scheme. • Specialised accommodation should go to those who need it most. A review should be established to put a more effective allocation process in place for applicants needing specialised property such as sheltered dwellings / wheelchair standard accommodation.

Q1. Do you agree?

Strongly agree Agree Don’t mind Disagree Strongly Disagree

Any other comments?

......

......

......

131 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Sources

• Department for Communities (2016) Northern Ireland Housing Statistics 2015-16 www.communities-ni.gov.uk/publications/northern-ireland-housing-statistics-2015-16

• Department for Communities (2017) Private Rented Sector in Northern Ireland – Proposals for Change www.communities-ni.gov.uk/sites/default/files/consultations/ communities/private-rented-sector-proposals-for-change-consultation.pdf

• Department for Social Development (2010) Building Sound Foundations: A Private Rented Strategy

• Department for Social Development (2012) Facing the Future: The Housing Strategy for Northern Ireland 2012-2017 www.communities-ni.gov.uk/publications/facing- future-housing-strategy-northern-ireland

• Fitzpatrick, S., Pawson, H., Bramley, G., Wilcox, S. and Watts, B., Institute for Social Policy, Housing and Equalities Research, Heriot-Watt University & City Futures Research Centre, University of New South Wales (2016) The Homelessness Monitor: Northern Ireland 2016 www.crisis.org.uk/data/files/publications/NI%20Homelessness%20Monitor%20 FINAL_FOR_www.pdf

• Paddy Gray P., Keenan, M., McAnulty, U. (University of Ulster) and Clarke, A., Monk, S., & Tang, C. (University of Cambridge)(2013) Research to inform a fundamental review of housing allocations policy: Report 1: Current approaches to accessing and allocating social housing in Northern Ireland; Report 2: Best practice approaches to accessing and allocating social housing in Britain and the Republic of Ireland; Final Report: Conclusions and Recommendations www.communities-ni.gov.uk/publications/fundamental-review- social-housing-allocations-policy

• Northern Ireland Housing Executive (2011) Housing Selection Scheme Preliminary Consultation Paper www.nihe.gov.uk/housing_selection_scheme_preliminary_ consultation_paper.pdf

• Northern Ireland Housing Executive (2012) Consultation on Changes to the Housing Selection Scheme www.nihe.gov.uk/the_housing_selection_scheme_consultation_ paper.pdf

132 Annex A

Continuous Tenant Omnibus Survey (2015)

133 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Table 1: Before becoming a Housing Executive tenant for approximately how long had you been on the waiting list?

Frequency % ome

6 months or less 29 29

More than 6 months, up to 1 year 41 41

More than 1 up to 2 years 13 13

More than 2 up to 5 years 9 9

More than 5 years 5 5

Don’t know/Cannot recall 3 3

Total 100 100%

Table 1: Was your time on the waiting list longer or shorter than you thought it would take to be allocated a property?

Frequency % ome

Much shorter 21 21

Shorter 23 23

About the time expected 23 23

Longer 16 16

Much Longer 13 13

Don’t know/Cannot recall 4 4

Total 100 100%

134 Table 3: Do you think an applicant who has spent longer on the waiting list should get priority over other applicants with similar needs?

Frequency % ome

Yes 67 67

No 33 33

Total 100 100%

Table 4: Did you accept the first property you were offered?

Frequency % ome

Yes 72 72

No 25 25

Don't know/Cannot remember 3 3

Total 100 100%

135 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Table 5: If no, how many other properties were you offered before you accepted an offer?

Frequency % ome

1 10 40

2 12 48

3 <5 8

4 <5 4

Total 25 100%

Missing 75

Total 100

Table 6: What were the two main reasons why you refused the previous offers?

Frequency % ome

Property was not within my area(s) of choice 15 60

Dwelling type unsuitable 8 32

Dwelling size unsuitable 9 36

Perception of Estate/Area the property was 4 16 located in

Not close enough to family/friend support 4 16 network

Lack of local amenities 3 12

Other - please specify 2 8

Base: 25 respondents who did not accept the first property they were offered

136 Table 7: Is the property you accepted located within any of your areas of choice?

Frequency % ome

Yes 88 88

No 12 12

Total 100 100%

Table 8: What were the two main reasons why you accepted this property offer?

Frequency % ome

Property was within my area(s) of choice 67 67

Dwelling type suitable 39 39

Close to family/friend my support network 32 32

Dwelling size suitable 16 16

Availability of local amenities 14 14

Estate/Area property located in 9 9

Other - please specify 9 9

Base: 100 (all respondents)

137 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Table 9: I would have preferred the size of area(s) of choice to be WIDER/BIGGER because this might have resulted in me being allocated a property more quickly

Frequency % ome

Agree 25 25

Neither 25 25

Disagree 50 50

Total 100 100%

Table 10: I would have preferred a LARGER/WIDER choice of area(s) because I would have been happy to consider living outside my area(s) of choice

Frequency % ome

Agree 15 15

Neither 22 22

Disagree 63 63

Total 100 100%

Table 11: I was happy with the size of the area(s) of choice I selected when I applied to go on the waiting list

Frequency % ome

Agree 73 73

Neither 14 14

Disagree 13 13

Total 100 100%

138 Table 12: I would have been interested in choosing a SMALLER area, even if it took longer for me to be allocated a property

Frequency % ome

Agree 16 16

Neither 21 21

Disagree 63 63

Total 100 100%

Table 13: I would have chosen a SMALL SPECIFIC area even if I had to wait longer to be allocated a property

Frequency % ome

Agree 17 17

Neither 25 25

Disagree 58 58

Total 100 100%

139 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Table 14: Are there any reasons why you would have wanted a LARGER area(s) of choice?

Frequency % ome

No 64 64

More property options available to me 17 17

Shortened time spent on waiting list 7 7

To choose a specific area <5 4

To get closer to family/friend <5 3 support network

Obtain a property in a nicer area <5 2

Availability of local amenities <5 2

Don't know <5 1

Total 100 100%

Table 15: Are there any reasons why you would have wanted a SMALLER area(s) of choice?

Frequency % ome

No 82 82

To get closer to family/friend support network <5 4

Obtain a property in a nicer area <5 3

Ability to choose a specific property type <5 2

Availability of local amenities <5 2

Don't know <5 3

To choose a specific area <5 3

Other <5 1

Total 82 100%

140 Table 16: Thinking about the area(s) of choice you selected when applying to go on the waiting list, if you could, would you have been interested in seeing and applying for other properties outside of these areas?

Frequency % ome

Yes 19 19

No 64 64

I was able to consider other properties outside 11 11 my area(s) choice

Don't know 6 6

Total 100 100%

Table 17: If the Housing Executive was to have contacted you about other available properties outside of your area(s) of choice, how would you have liked the Housing Executive to make you aware of these properties?

Frequency % ome

By telephone 85 85

In writing 58 58

By Text/SMS 44 44

By email 28 28

Visit you in your home 19 19

Post it on Facebook 4 4

Advertise in a local newsletter 4 4

Other - please specify 4 4

Via Twitter 2 2

Advertise on the Housing 2 2 Executive's website

141 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Table 18: When the Housing Executive is allocating a property, what level of priority, if any, should be given to applicants with serious medical or mobility needs?

Frequency % ome

Not a priority 2 2

Medium priority 6 6

High priority 71 71

Essential 21 21

Total 100 100

Table 19: When the Housing Executive is allocating a property, what level of priority, if any, should be given to homeless applicants living in temporary accommodation e.g. hostel?

Frequency % ome

Not a priority 2 2

Low priority 6 6

Medium priority 25 25

High priority 50 50

Essential 17 17

Total 100 100%

142 Table 20: When the Housing Executive is allocating a property, what level of priority, if any, should be given to homeless applicants staying with friends/family?

Frequency % ome

Not a priority 1 1

Low priority 12 12

Medium priority 35 35

High priority 38 38

Essential 14 14

Total 100 100%

Table 21: When the Housing Executive is allocating a property, what level of priority, if any, should be given to applicants who need to move to ensure their own safety from domestic violence?

Frequency % ome

Not a priority 2 2

Medium priority 9 9

High priority 55 55

Essential 34 34

Total 100 100%

143 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Table 22: When the Housing Executive is allocating a property, what level of priority, if any, should be given to applicants who need to move because they were threatened with intimidation?

Frequency % ome

Not a priority 2 2

Low priority 2 2

Medium priority 6 6

High priority 62 62

Essential 28 28

Total 100 100%

Table 23: When the Housing Executive is allocating a property, what level of priority, if any, should be given to applicants who need to move as their home is unliveable e.g. through fire?

Frequency % ome

Not a priority 2 2

Medium priority 17 17

High priority 47 47

Essential 34 34

Total 100 100%

144 Table 24: When the Housing Executive is allocating a property, what level of priority, if any, should be given to applicants in low paid employment?

Frequency % ome

Not a priority 12 12

Low priority 24 24

Medium priority 39 39

High priority 23 23

Essential 2 2

Total 100 100%

Table 25: When the Housing Executive is allocating a property, what level of priority, if any, should be given to applicants whose child(ren) goes (go) to local schools?

Frequency % ome

Not a priority 11 11

Low priority 20 20

Medium priority 32 32

High priority 32 32

Essential 5 5

Total 100 100%

145 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Table 26: When the Housing Executive is allocating a property, what level of priority, if any, should be given to applicants who have waited the longest time?

Frequency % ome

Not a priority 4 4

Low priority 5 5

Medium priority 39 39

High priority 42 42

Essential 10 10

Total 100 100%

146 Annex B

A note on the key findings of NIHE’s 2015 modelling exercise

147 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

The Department for Communities asked FINDINGS NIHE’s Research Unit to undertake a In respect of banding, research applicants modelling exercise on the effects of in general had been waiting longer than potential changes to the current Selection the actual applicants (10 years longer in Scheme in relation to: the case of the high demand area and 2.5 / 3 years longer in the other areas). In some (i) making allocations by bands based on cases, the same applicant would have similar levels of housing need by time received the allocation regardless of which on waiting list; and method was used. (ii) removing intimidation points from the Scheme or reducing the level of points In respect of removing intimidation points, awarded. in each case the actual applicant would not have had enough points to receive . In all 5 cases, the research Annex C sets out the detailed findings an allocation applicant had been waiting longer than from the modelling. Included at Annex D is the actual applicant. (In this stage of the NIHE’s report on the modelling in full. modelling, no additional weight was given to time waiting.) Allocations made by three NIHE District Office areas were used in the modelling: When both changes were considered an urban area with high demand, an urban together, in the small number of cases area with low demand and an urban area of applicants with intimidation points, it with rural hinterland. was clear that a different household in all cases would have been allocated the The modeling considered the ‘what if’ property. The impact of both changes was scenario, by comparing the allocations particularly clear in the high demand urban that were made (“actual applicants”) with area, where modelled applicants could be the ‘what if’ scenarios for the two changes seen to have been waiting on the list for a above, i.e. who would have been allocated much greater length of time. a property if those changes had been in place (“research applicants”). Some equality impacts were noted by NIHE in respect of age and dependants, but it Transfer applicants were excluded from was also noted that the total numbers the research on the basis that it would be in this research are relatively small. The easier to compare actual allocations with findings are set out in more detail below, in research allocations if one type of applicant Annexes C and D. (i.e. a new applicant, rather than a transfer) was consistently used.

148 Annex C

Detailed results of NIHE’s 2015 modelling exercise for banding

149 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Banding - Urban Area (high demand)

The table below shows all the allocations are shown separately. The proposals to made by one NIHE District Office in a sample remove intimidation points (proposal 7) month, in the urban area (high demand). and to place applicants into bands based It also shows allocations made by that on similar levels of need (proposal 10) District Office for a subsequent month are not interdependent. Decisions on for intimidation cases only. Allocations implementation will be taken depending on to households with intimidation points the outcome of this consultation.

Urban Area (High Demand) ome Actual applicant: Research applicant Difference in Difference in time points and date of if banding used: points between waiting between application points and date of the two applicants the two applicants application

146 (2013) * 130 (1997) * + 16 points * 16 years *

180 (2005) * 160 (2005) * + 20 points * Same year *

212 (2012) 150 (2000) + 62 points 12 years

210 (2007) 150 (2000) + 60 points 7 years

200 (2014) 156 (2010) + 44 points 4 years

190 (2014) 150 (2000) + 40 points 14 years

186 (2011) * 150 (2005) * + 36 points * 6 years *

180 (2013) 150 (2000) + 30 points 13 years

190 (2013) * 150 (2000) * + 40 points * 13 years *

162 (2012) 176 (2000) - 14 points 12 years

158 (2014) 176 (2000) - 18 points 14 years

150 Urban Area (High Demand) ome Actual applicant: Research applicant Difference in Difference in time points and date of if banding used: points between waiting between application points and date of the two applicants the two applicants application

140 (2013) * 130 (2008) * + 10 points * 5 years *

134 (2010) * 120 (1974) * + 14 points * 36 years *

134 (2011) * 126 (2007) * + 8 points * 4 years *

110 (2013) 118 (1996) - 8 points 17 years

147 (2005) * 138 (2005)* + 9 points* Same year *

144 (2007) 146 (2001) - 2 points 6 years

146 (2010) 120 (2003) + 26 points 7 years

130 (2014) * 136 (2012)* - 6 points 2 years

116 (2014) 118 (2007) -2 points 7 years

106 (2010) 110 (2003) - 4 points 7 years

97 (2014) 92 (2006) + 5 points 8 years

97 (2014) 92 (2006) + 5 points 8 years

Intimidation cases, i.e. before / after intimidation points were removed

310 / 110 (2014) 180 (1995) +130 / - 70 points 19 years §

300 / 100 (2013) § 180 (1995) +120 / - 80 points 18 years

312 / 112 (2013) § 110 (2002) + 202 / +2 points 11 years

290 / 90 (2013) § 110 (2003) + 180 / -20 points 10 years

151 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations ome Entries in bold are the examples used earlier in this document.

* This property was offered to multiple applicants to express an interest. In some cases the research applicant had been asked to express an interest, in others not.

This applicant was allocated a property in excess of the bedrooms their household required.

These symbols represent four applicants who might have received a num- ber of offers based on their time waiting and level of need.

§ The applicant who received the property had their intimidation points removed for the purposes of the modelling exercise.

Note that the research applicant is different from the examples cited earlier in this document, because in this phase of the research, the focus is on the research applicant who has waited longest in a similar level of need. Proposal 7 sets out the applicants who would have been successful if the sole change to the Scheme was the removal of intimidation points.

Note that, for the second research month, which identified additional in- timidation cases, a full banding analysis was not undertaken. In the mod- elling, the research applicant was the applicant who had waited longest in the same band (rather than the highest band). This means that, in the last two rows of the table above, there may have been research applicants in higher need than the two applicants with 110 points from 2002 and 2003.

152 Banding - Urban area (low demand)

The table below shows all the allocations applicant regardless of which approach (the made by one NIHE District Office in a sample current Scheme or the proposed banding month, in an urban area (low demand). system) is used. Allocations to households with intimidation points are shown separately. The points difference between the actual and research applicants, and the difference A different pattern can be seen from in time waiting, tend to be lower than in the the high demand area, with 9 of the high demand urban area. 29 allocations being made to the same

UrbanUrban AreaArea (High(Low Demand)Demand) ome Actual applicant: Research applicant Difference in Difference in time points and date of if banding used: points between waiting between application points and date of the two applicants the two applicants application

150 (1996) Same applicantSame applicantapplicant Same applicant

0 0 (2015) (2015) 0 (2014) No differencedifference 1 year

143 (2014) * 125 (2014)* + 18 pointspoints * * Same year *

130 (2013)(2013) Same applicantapplicant Same applicantapplicant Same applicantapplicant

126 (2013)(2013) 126 (2008)(2008) No differencedifference 5 years

126 (2013)(2013) 130 (2009)(2009) - 4 pointspoints 4 years

116 (2014)(2014) 90 (2013)(2013) + 26 pointspoints 1 year

116 (2013)(2013) 104 (2009)(2009) + 12 pointspoints 4 years

110 (2014)(2014) 90(2014) + 20 pointspoints Same yearyear

104 (2014)(2014) 116 (2007)(2007) - 12 pointspoints 7 years

100 (2014)(2014) 92 (2010)(2010) + 8 pointspoints 4 years

153 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Urban Area (Low Demand) ome Actual applicant: Research applicant Difference in Difference in time points and date of if banding used: points between waiting between application points and date of the two applicants the two applicants application

100 (2014) Same applicant Same applicant Same applicant

90 (2014)* 92 (2012)* - 2 points* 2 years*

84 (2014) Same applicant Same applicant Same applicant

90 (2014) Same applicant Same applicant Same applicant

70 (2013)* 72(2012)* - 2 points* 1 year*

60 (2014)* Same applicant Same applicant Same applicant

60 (2014) Same applicant Same applicant Same applicant

59 (2014) * Same applicant Same applicant Same applicant

50 (2014) 50 (2014)* No difference Same year

50 (2014) * 30(2006) + 20 points 8 years

40 (2014)* 50 (2004)* - 10 points 10 years

30 (2013) * 30 (2013)* No difference Same year

20 (2014) * 24 (2011)* - 4 points 3 years

20 (2014) * 26 (2010) * - 6 points 4 years

20 (2014)* 20 (2005)* No difference 9 years

0 (2014) Same applicant Same applicant Same applicant

0 (2014)* 0 (2012)* No difference* 2 years*

Intimidation cases, i.e. before / after intimidation points were removed

320 / 120 (2014) § 160 (2007) + 160 / - 40 points 7 years

154 ome * This property was offered to multiple applicants to express an interest. In some cases the research applicant had been asked to express an interest, in others not.

§ The applicant who received the property had their intimidation points removed for the purposes of the modelling exercise.

Note that the research applicant is different from the examples cited earlier in this document, because in this phase of the research, the focus is on the research applicant who has waited longest in a similar level of need. Proposal 7 sets out the applicants who would have been successful if the sole change to the Scheme was the removal of intimidation points.

155 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Banding - Urban area (with rural hinterland)

The table below shows all the allocations There are fewer total allocations, and a made by one NIHE District Office in a similar pattern can be seen to the low sample month, in an urban area with a rural demand urban area, i.e. the differences hinterland. No applicants in this sample had between the applicants, in terms of points intimidation points. and time waiting, are not as great as in the high demand urban area.

Urban area (rural hinterland) ome Actual applicant: Research applicant Difference in Difference in time points and date of if banding used: points between waiting between application points and date of the two applicants the two applicants application

149 (2014) 144 (2011) + 5 points 3 years

112 (2014) 94 (2010) + 18 points 4 years

90 (2013) 94 (2010) - 4 points 3 years

90 (2014) 94 (2010) - 4 points 4 years

59 (2014) * 30 (2013) * + 29 points * 1 year *

42 (2003) 34 (2005) + 8 points - 2 years

* This property was offered to multiple applicants to express an interest. These symbols show where the research identified that the same household might have received a number of offers based on their time waiting and level of need.

156

Annex D NIHE report: Modelling exercise to estimate effects of potential changes to current Housing Selection Scheme

157 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

NIHE report: Modelling exercise to estimate effects of potential changes to current Housing Selection Scheme

1.0. Introduction in introducing a revised Selection Following the publication of the Scheme which addresses a number of University of Ulster/University of concerns identified to date. Cambridge report “Research to Inform a Fundamental Review It is important to note the limitations of Social Housing Allocations of the study; the sample size is small Policy” in December 2013 and a and therefore not necessarily truly subsequent consultation exercise, representative of allocations as a the DSD has asked the Housing whole. Nevertheless this essentially Executive’s Research Unit to qualitative methodology is valuable undertake a modelling exercise in that it provides an evidence which will estimate the effects of base for assessing the impact of potential changes to the current the two proposals and indicating Selection Scheme in relation to (i) the likely outcomes of change. a combination of points and length It is recommended that a more of time on the Waiting List and (ii) comprehensive Pilot study should the impact of removing intimidation be carried out following any initial points from the Scheme. The research Departmental consultation, in one of study was carried out by NIHE’s the busier local offices. Research Unit in partnership with its Landlord Services. 2.0 Methodology The outcome of preliminary meetings The research will inform a further between the DSD and NIHE was a round of consultation on changes to three stage methodology designed the Selection Scheme. It will provide to address a number of issues that the Department for Communities arose in the academic research and (DfC) and Northern Ireland Housing subsequent consultation: Executive (NIHE) with evidence • Stage 1: Banding using a combination to support engagement with of points and time on waiting list; tenants and their representatives

158 • Stage 2: Intimidation points to be consuming case-review approach, tested separately from Banding; of which only the high level outcomes with 40 points awarded and 0 points are presented here. awarded (instead of 200 as in the current Scheme); and NIHE Landlord Services provided the • Stage 3: Intimidation points to be Research Unit with a listing of all tested (with 40 points awarded and allocations for a given month for each 0 points) alongside Banding using a of the 3 areas. This listing was to be combination of points and time on the database for Stages 1-3. However, waiting list. for Stage 2 and 3 the database was boosted to include allocations for an Three areas for modelling were additional month as the given month agreed: saw very few allocations to applicants with intimidation points. • Area 1: Urban area (High demand); • Area 2: Urban area (Low demand); and Using the database, the Research Unit accessed the Housing Management • Area 3: Urban area (with Rural System (HMS) to obtain the matching hinterland). criteria (characteristics to enable a suitable match) for that property. The Research Unit reviewed actual This information was then converted allocations made in a given month, to SPSS (a statistical package used by including headline information on the Research Unit to process data) the household who was allocated the for easier manipulation of the data. property. The Unit then reviewed all other applicants on the waiting list in Banding was applied at stages 1 and that area of choice, who could have 3 with date of application as proxy for been allocated the same size property. the date final points were awarded For Stages 1 and 3, this involved for those allocations made before reviewing the points award and date July 2011. of application for all applicants in that area, to identify those applicants within the same points band and then The Research Unit also requested to identify their date of application. Landlord Services provide a listing This was an intensive and time- of all applicants with intimidation

159 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

points on the waiting list for the high which had actually become available demand urban area and an additional in the given month on the basis of urban area for contextual information. seven hypothetical Bands ranging Landlord Services provided a listing for from 0 to 150+ with a range of 30 two consecutive months, one of which points between each Band: was the additional month included in Stage 2 of the research. • Band 1: 0 points • Band 2: 1-29 points Transfer applicants were excluded • Band 3: 30-59 points from the research on the basis that • Band 4: 60-89 points they typically have a different profile of housing need from applicants • Band 5: 90-119 points on the waiting list, and therefore • Band 6: 120-149 points the distribution across bands may • Band 7: 150+ points be significantly different from new applicants. It was determined that it Rather than priority being determined would be easier to compare actual by the number of points, the modelled allocations with research allocations allocation was based on the property if one type of applicant (i.e. a new being awarded to the household applicant, rather than a transfer) was (which matched the area of choice consistently used. and the bedroom criteria) in the highest band that had been on the The Research Unit has policies, waiting list the longest. procedures and structures in place to ensure that there is a safe 2.2 Stage 2: Intimidation points environment for the handling and reduced / removed storage of all data as required under At stage 2, intimidation points were the UK Statistics Authority’s Code tested separately from Banding. of Practice. Two approaches were followed: in the first, all 200 intimidation points 2.1 Stage 1: Banding using a were removed, meaning an award combination of points and time of 0 points for intimidation. In the on waiting list second, 160 points were removed, The initial stage of the modelling meaning an award of 40 points for exercise involved allocating properties intimidation. Under both approaches,

160 it was assumed that applicants who 3.0 Key Findings had been intimidated would continue “Actual applicant/allocation” to be awarded the 20 social needs refers to the applicant that was in points for threat of violence. fact allocated the property under the current scheme. All modelled allocations were based on the removal of all intimidation “Research (or modelled) points or all but 40 intimidation points, combined with the choice of applicant/allocation” refers to area and the appropriate bedroom the applicant who would have requirement. This ensured that a been allocated the property if the consistent approach was taken to modelled changes had been put variations in the number of bedrooms into practice. and the appropriate household composition for the dwelling 3.1 Stage 1: Banding using a available. The modelled applicant combination of points and on the list with the highest points – Time on Waiting List after all intimidation points (or all but High demand urban area 40 points) had been removed - was There were a total of 34 allocations deemed the applicant who would in the high demand urban area have been allocated the property. in the research month. Nine were transfers, and were excluded from the 2.3 Stage 3: Intimidation points modelling exercise, leaving a total of removed with Banding applied 25 actual allocations to be analysed. At stage 3, all intimidation points were removed and banding was Nine of these actual allocations were applied as in Stage 1. made to households registered on the waiting list before 2011. All modelled banding allocations were based on: removal of all 200 Only on two occasions was the actual intimidation points combined with applicant and the research applicant the choice of area and appropriate the same (i.e. the same applicant bedroom requirement and date of would have been allocated the application. property regardless of which method was used).

161 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

As part of the research, the modelled Under the Banding approach, applicants were not removed from modelled applicants typically had the list as it could not be known that significantly lower points totals. they would accept an offer. Therefore Some of the actual applicants had they all remained ‘live’ cases for the more than 200 points (5 cases out of purpose of the research. As a result, 25) whereas none of the modelled four applicants would have been applicants had. offered a property, using the Banding method, on numerous occasions. The table below shows that there For example, an applicant on the were more applicants in the higher waiting list from 2000 would have bands in the high demand urban area. been offered a property through the This would be as expected as the high Banding exercise five times. demand urban area had more people on the waiting list with higher points On average modelled allocations and for a greater length of time. would have been made to households who have been on Table 1: High demand urban area: Number the waiting list for approximately of cases in each Band 10 years longer than the actual applicants who were allocated Banding Number the property. of Cases

There are clear signs of some equality Band 1: 0 points 0 impact in relation to age. In six cases out of 25, actual allocations went Band 2: 1-29 points 0 to younger age groups (either 18- Band 3: 30-59 points 0 25 or 26-59) but under Banding, the dwellings would have been allocated Band 4: 60-89 points 0 to people aged 60+. Band 5: 90-119 points 5 This change in age profile had little Band 6: 120-149 points 8 effect on dependants, probably because of the bedroom standard Band 7: 150+ Points 12 being applied.

162 Low demand urban area There was little variation between the There were a total of 34 allocations points levels. On seven occasions the in the low demand urban area in the modelled applicant had fewer points research month. Five were transfers: than the actual applicant. Only on these were excluded from the one occasion had the actual applicant modelling exercise, leaving a total of more than 200 points in total (320). 29 actual allocations to be analysed. In the low demand urban area there One actual allocation was to a were generally more applicants in household registered on the waiting the lower Banding compared to the list before 2011. high demand urban area, as shown in Table 2 below:

On nine occasions the actual Table 2: Low demand urban area: Number applicant and the modelled applicant of cases in each Band were the same (i.e. the same applicant would have been allocated the property regardless of which Banding Number method was used). of Cases

On average modelled allocations Band 1: 0 points 3 would have been made to Band 2: 1-29 points 3 households who had been on the waiting list for approximately Band 3: 30-59 points 4 2.5 years longer than the actual applicants who were allocated t Band 4: 60-89 points 4 he property. Band 5: 90-119 points 9

There was little equality impact in Band 6: 120-149 points 5 relation to age. In only four cases out of 29 did actual allocations go to a Band 7: 150+ Points 1 younger age group (26-59) whereas under Banding, the dwelling would have been allocated to people aged 60+.

163 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Urban area with rural On two occasions the modelled applicant hinterland had more points than the actual applicant. There were a total of eight allocations (This may occur for a valid reason, for in the urban area with rural hinterland example, the modelled applicant had in the research month. Two were in fact been offered the property, but transfers: these were excluded from had refused it.) However, there was little the modelling exercise, leaving a variation between the points awarded to total of six actual allocations to be the actual and modelled applicants. analysed. The urban area with rural hinterland had One actual allocation was to a fewer allocations compared to both the household registered on the waiting high demand and low demand urban areas, list before 2011. with applicants in Bands 3, 5 and 6 as shown in Table 3 below:

One research applicant would have Table 3: Rural: Number of cases in been offered a property on numerous occasions. For example, an applicant each Band on the waiting list from 2010 would have been offered a property through the Banding exercise three times. Banding Number of Cases On average research allocations have been made to households who Band 1: 0 points 0 have been on the waiting list for approximately 3 years longer than Band 2: 1-29 points 0 the actual applicants who were Band 3: 30-59 points 2 awarded the property. Band 4: 60-89 points 0 There is little equality impact in Band 5: 90-119 points 3 relation to age. Only in one case out of the six did actual allocations go to Band 6: 120-149 points 1 a younger age group (26-59) whereas under Banding, the dwelling would Band 7: 150+ Points 0 have been allocated to people aged 60+.

164 An example of a case study from one of the areas analysed in Stage 1 can be seen in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Case study number 1:

Actual Applicant Modelled Applicant Comments

Date of Application 2013 1997 16 years difference

Age 26-59 26-59

Dependants No no

Points 146 130 16 points difference

Summary and points allocated, with the low As would be expected under Banding, demand and rural areas having fewer modelled allocations are made to people on the waiting list for long applicants who have been on the periods of time and with lower points waiting list longer than the actual compared to the high demand area. applicant. There is some indication In conclusion Banding shows a clear of an equality impact based on age impact in all districts, but particularly in all three areas, particularly in in the urban area of high demand. the high demand urban area, with actual allocations being more likely 3.2 Stage 2: Intimidation points to go to younger households, and removed modelled allocations more likely to In this stage, the Banding analysis go to those over 60. There is generally of Stage 1 was set aside. The little variation in points between only change modelled was that the actual and modelled applicant. intimidation points were removed However, variation between the three from those applicants on the list who Areas is clearly evident in respect had been awarded them. All other of length of time on waiting list points remained unchanged.

165 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

The high demand urban area had applicants’ areas of choice, and the only made two allocations in the size and type of property they were research month to applicants with deemed to need: these may not have intimidation points, the low demand been available in the research month urban area had made one and the or the additional month. urban/rural area had made none. The sample was boosted therefore All actual applicants but one were to include an additional month of awarded 20 social needs points for allocations. However, again the low violence or fear of violence. demand urban and urban/rural areas had no intimidation allocations in High demand urban area – the additional month and the high research month demand urban area had only two. There were a total of two allocations to applicants with intimidation points As there were very few allocations in the high demand area in the to applicants with intimidation research month. points in the area of high demand, the Research Unit asked Landlord If the intimidation points were Services to provide a listing of all removed from both applicants, in those applicants on the waiting list each case, they would not have with intimidation points for the high received an allocation. The same demand area, and a separate area modelled applicant would have been for comparison. There were a total allocated the property regardless of of 40 intimidation applicants: 28 whether all intimidation points or in the high demand area and 12 in all but 40 intimidation points were the comparison area; points awards removed. ranged from 270 to 432 and the two modelled applicants from the high demand urban area were included on Both modelled allocations would have the list. Further work with the Local been made to applicants who had Offices may be required to see why been on the waiting list on average there appear to be a low number 3.5 years longer than the actual of allocations made to intimidation applicants. cases, compared to the number of applicants on the waiting list. There was an age difference between However, relevant factors may be actual and modelled applicants: in

166 case 1, the actual allocation was As would be expected in both cases, to someone aged 26-59 and the modelled applicants had typically modelled applicant was aged 16- significantly lower points totals than 25yrs. In case 2 the actual applicant the actual applicant, because the was aged 18-25 and the modelled actual applicants had intimidation applicant was aged 26-59yrs. points. However, the modelled applicants both had 200+ points based on their housing circumstances There are clear signs of some equality (i.e. excluding any intimidation points impact in relation to dependants. In they may have been entitled to). Table both cases the actual applicant had 2 below shows the points difference no dependants and the modelled between the actual and modelled applicants both had 1 dependant child. applicants for the two intimidation allocations.

Table 5: High demand urban Allocations (research month) – Points difference

Actual Applicant Modelled Applicant

Points Awarded Date of Points Date of Application Awarded Application

Case 1 300 (if all intimidation points 2013 224 2011 removed, applicant would have had 100 points; if 160 intimidation points removed – 140 points)

Case 2 310 (If all intimidation points 2014 228 2009 removed,– applicant would have had 110 points; if 160 intimidation points removed -150 points)

167 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

In both cases, the actual applicants whether all intimidation points or only had 70 homeless points and 20 social 160 intimidation points were removed. need points, meaning their underlying housing need, excluding all factors Modelled allocations would have been related to the intimidation, was 10- made to households who had been on 20 points. the waiting list since 2008 and 2009, on average 4.5 years longer on the waiting High demand urban area – list than the actual applicants. additional month There were a total of two allocations to There was no age difference between applicants with intimidation points in actual and modelled applicants in both the high demand area in the additional cases. In 1 case the modelled applicant month. had 1 dependant child whereas the actual applicant had none. If the intimidation points were removed from both applicants, in each case, they In both cases the modelled applicant would not have received an allocation. had lower points than the actual Again on both occasions the same applicant as detailed in the Table modelled applicant would have been 3 below: allocated the property regardless of

Table 6: High demand urban area Allocations (research month) – Points difference

Actual Applicant Modelled Applicant

Points Awarded Date of Points Date of Application Awarded Application

Case 1 312 (If all intimidation points 2013 228 2009 removed, applicant would have had 112 points; if 160 intimidation points removed – 152 points)

Case 2 290 (If all intimidation points 2013 170 2008 removed, applicant would have had 90 points; if 160 intimidation points removed -130 points)

168 In both cases, the actual applicants The modelled allocation was made had 70 homeless points and 20 social to a household which has been seven need points, meaning their underlying months longer on the waiting list. housing need, excluding all factors related to the intimidation, was 0-22 There was an age difference in points. actual and modelled applicants; the actual applicant was 26-59 and the Low demand urban area – modelled applicant was 60+yrs. Both research month had no dependants. There was one intimidation allocation in the low demand urban area in the As would be expected, the modelled research month. applicant had a typically significantly lower points total as detailed in the The same modelled applicant would summary table below: have been allocated the property regardless of whether all intimidation points or only 160 intimidation points were removed.

Table 9: Low demand urban area Allocations (research month) – Points difference

Actual Applicant Modelled Applicant

Points Awarded Date of Points Date of Application Awarded Application

Case 1 320 (If all intimidation points 2014 168 2014 removed, applicant would have had 120 points; If 160 intimidation points removed- 160 points)

169 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

The actual applicant had 70 homeless low demand urban area had one and points and 20 social need points, the urban / rural area had none. For meaning their underlying housing this reason the sample was boosted need, excluding all factors related to again by including an additional the intimidation, was 30 points. month’s allocations, however both the low demand urban and the urban Summary / rural area had no intimidation allocations in the additional month Clearly if intimidation points are and the high demand urban area removed a different household is had two. in all cases allocated the property; there are too few cases to make any significant assessment of the High demand urban area – research month equality impact in relation to age and dependants. However, regardless of There were a total of 2 intimidation whether all intimidation points are allocations in the high demand urban removed or 40 intimidation points are area in the research month. awarded instead of 200, there is no difference in terms of which applicant Both modelled allocations were made is awarded the property. The exercise to applicants who had been on the also clearly shows again that in the waiting list on average 10.5 years high demand urban area there were longer than the actual allocations. applicants on the waiting list for a considerable length of time with There was an age difference between 150+ points. This was evident in the actual and modelled applicants in one modelling exercise when intimidation case: the actual applicant was aged points were removed and allocations 18-25 and the modelled applicant were still going to applicants who had was aged 26-59yrs. been on the waiting list for on average 3.5 years longer with 150+ points. There is some indication of an 3.3 Stage 3: Intimidation points equality impact in relation to removed with banding applied dependants. In both cases the actual applicant had no dependants and the As stated in Phase 2, the high demand modelled applicants both had one urban area had two intimidation dependant child. However the number allocations in the research month, the of cases is very small.

170 As would be expected in both cases, points allocated to actual and modelled applicants had typically modelled applicants were either very significantly lower points totals than similar or the same as shown in the the actual applicant. However, when table below: all intimidation points were removed,

Table 8: High demand urban area – research month allocations – Points difference

Actual Applicant Modelled Applicant

Points Awarded Date of Points Date of Application Awarded Application

Case 1 300 (Intimidation points removed 2013 90 2004 – 100 points)

Case 1 310 (Intimidation points removed 2014 110 2002 – 110 points)

171 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

High demand urban area – in one case: the actual applicant Additional month was aged 18-25 and the modelled There were a total of two intimidation applicant was aged 26-59yrs. In one allocations in the high demand urban case the modelled applicant had one area in the additional month. dependant child whereas the actual applicant had none.

Modelled allocations were made to households who had been on the In both cases the modelled waiting list since 2002 and 2003, applicant had fewer points than the on average 10.5 years longer on actual applicant and again when the waiting list than the actual intimidation points were removed allocations made. and banding applied the points were very similar; in one case the modelled applicant had more points than the There was an age difference between actual applicant as detailed in the both actual and modelled applicants table below:

Table 5: High demand urban area – additional month Allocations – Points difference

Actual Applicant Modelled Applicant

Points Awarded Date of Points Date of Application Awarded Application

Case 1 312 (Intimidation points removed 2013 110 2002 -112 points)

Case 2 290 (Intimidation points removed 2013 110 2003 – 90 points)

172 Low demand urban area – There was no age difference between Research month actual and modelled applicants. There was 1 intimidation allocation Neither applicant had dependants. in the low demand urban area in the research month. Modelled applicants had typically significantly lower points totals. The modelled allocation was made to However, when all intimidation points a household which had been one year were removed and banding applied longer on the waiting list. the modelled applicant had more points than the actual applicant as detailed in the summary table below:

Table 6: Low demand urban area – Research month Allocations – Points difference

Actual Applicant Modelled Applicant

Points Awarded Date of Points Date of Application Awarded Application

Case 1 320 (Intimidation points removed 2014 149 2013 -120 points)

173 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

Summary dwelling has been on the waiting In scenarios in which intimidation list. There is clear evidence that points were removed and banding introducing one or both of these applied, a different household in amendments would address some all cases would be allocated the of the concerns raised to date as property. There are too few cases referenced by the academic research. to make any significant assessment There would also appear to be of the equality impact in relation equality impacts in relation to the to age and dependants. However, age of households and the number the importance of the removal of dependants. of intimidation points and the application of banding is particularly However it is important to note evident in the high demand urban the limitations of the study; area, where modelled applicants are the sample size is small and shown to have been on the waiting therefore not necessarily truly list for a much greater length of time. representative of allocations as a whole. Nevertheless this essentially 4.0 Conclusion qualitative methodology is valuable This small research study has in that it provides an evidence provided a number of insights into base for assessing the impact of the effects of applying banding, using the two proposals and indicating a combination of points with time the likely outcomes of change. on waiting list, and the removal of It is recommended that a more all or most intimidation points, on comprehensive Pilot study should the allocation of housing. Both have be carried out following any initial a significant impact on the length Departmental consultation, in one of time of an applicant awarded a of the busier local offices.

174

Annex E

Draft implementation timescales

175 A Fundamental Review of Social Housing Allocations

The table below suggests which of the proposals (if adopted following consultation) will receive priority for implementation. This will be reviewed based on the likely complexity of implementation.

Measure Likely Timescales 1. An independent, tenure-neutral housing advice service for Short Term Northern Ireland.

2. An applicant who has been involved in unacceptable behaviour Medium Term should not be eligible for social housing or Full Duty homelessness (subject to status unless there is reason to believe – at the time the application legislative is considered – that the unacceptable behaviour is likely to cease. timescale)

3. NIHE may treat a person as ineligible for Full Duty homelessness Medium Term status on the basis of their unacceptable behaviour at any time (subject to before allocating that person a social home. legislative timescale)

4. NIHE can meet their duty to homeless applicants on a tenure- Short Term neutral basis, provided that the accommodation meets certain conditions.

5. A greater choice of areas for all applicants for a social home. Short Term

6. Greater use of a mutual exchange service. Short Term

7. The removal of intimidation points from the Selection Scheme. Short Term

8. Points should reflect current circumstances for all applicants Short Term

9. The removal of Interim Accommodation points from the Selection Dependent on Scheme. proposal 10

10. The Selection Scheme should place applicants into bands based Long Term on similar levels of need to meet longstanding housing need (further mod- more effectively. elling may be required)

176 11. The Selection Scheme should always align the number of bedrooms Medium Term a household is assessed to need with the size criteria for eligible Housing Benefit customers.

12. For difficult-to-let properties: Social landlords should be able to Short term make multiple offers to as many applicants as they think necessary. 13. For difficult-to-let properties: Social landlords should be able to use choice-based letting. 14. For difficult-to-let properties: Social landlords should be able to go direct to multiple offers if they have evidence that a property will be difficult to let.

15. An applicant may receive two reasonable offers of accommodation. Short Term

16. Social landlords may withdraw an offer of accommodation in Short Term specified circumstances.

17. Social landlords may withhold consent for a policy succession Short Term or assignment to a general needs social home in limited circumstances where there is evidence an applicant needs it.

18. Social landlords may withhold consent for a policy succession Short Term or assignment of adapted accommodation or purpose built wheelchair standard accommodation where there is evidence an applicant needs it.

19. Updating the Selection Scheme to bring it in line with developments Short Term in Public Protection Arrangements Northern Ireland.

20. Specialised properties should be allocated by a separate process Medium Term outside the Selection Scheme.

177

Unclassified

ITEM 4

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Community & Wellbeing

Date of Meeting 17 January 2018

Responsible Director Director of Community and Wellbeing

Responsible Head of Head of Finance Service

Date of Report 29 December 2017

File Reference FIN45

Legislation Section 5 Local Government Finance Act (NI) 2011

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☐ No ☐ Not Applicable ☒

Subject Community & Wellbeing Budgetary Control Report – November 2017

Attachments

This Community & Wellbeing Budgetary Control Report covers the 8-month period 1 April to 30 November 2017 and is set out on page 3. The net cost of services is showing an under spend of £201,457 (3.6%).

Explanation of Variance

A Budgetary Control Report by Income and Expenditure for the Directorate is shown on page 4 which analyses the overall favourable variance (£201,457) by expenditure (£601,812 favourable) and income (£400,355 adverse).

Community & Wellbeing

Expenditure - £601.8k (7.1%) better than budget to date. This favourable variance is mainly made up of the following: - 1. Community & Wellbeing HQ - £21.5k adverse. Consultancy costs £9.7k adverse (V4 consultancy in connection with the potential outsourcing of the remainder of Leisure Services. This was not budgeted for). Legal fees £11.4k adverse in respect of Holywood Rugby Club (legacy issue – not budgeted for).

Page 1 of 4

Unclassified

2. Environmental Health - £7.1k adverse. a. Payroll £20.4k adverse mainly due to final payments made to an employee who retired on ill health grounds at the end of April. b. Mileage is £6.9k favourable year to date. c. Samples analysis is currently £9.4k favourable to date though this is expected to come back into line with budget as the year progresses. 3. Community & Culture - £392.1k favourable. a. Payroll £86.5k favourable mainly due to underspends in Community Development (£41.7k), Good Relations (£16.1k), Peace IV (£12.9k) and Arts Development (£6.7k). Vacant posts in these services are to be filled as the year progresses. b. Community Partnership is £15.0k under budget but this is offset by a similar adverse variance on income – see 6a below. c. Community Activity & Summer Programmes running costs are £15.4k under budget to date. d. Peace 4 grant payments are £274.3k under budget to date but this is offset by a similar adverse variance on income – see 6b below. 4. Leisure & Amenities - £238.4k favourable. a. Payroll £51.6k favourable which is mainly due to underspends in Parks and Cemeteries (£91.3k), Community Halls/Centres (£27.9k) and Leisure Admin (£22.9k) with an overspend in Leisure (£90.6k). The overspend in Leisure is mainly in Ards LC (£73.1k) and Londonderry Park (£18.3k) and has been caused by additional overtime, casuals and agency to cover staff shortages. b. Ards LC (£49.0k), Portaferry SC (£8.5k) and Londonderry Park (£11.2k) running costs (excluding payroll) are £68.7k under budget to date. c. Community Halls/Centres running costs (excluding payroll) are £17.1k under budget to date. d. Parks and Cemeteries running costs (excluding payroll) are £16.9k favourable to date. e. There are a number of small favourable variances to date for other Leisure services such as Ards Half Marathon £4.5k, 10k Road Race £13.8k (offset by similar reduction in income – see 5d below), Sports Pavilions £12.2k, Sports & Football Development £9.4k, Bangor Sportsplex £5.8k, Queens Hall £6.4k and Countryside Management £4.7k.

Income - £400.4k (14.0%) worse than budget to date. This adverse variance is mainly made up of the following: - 5. Leisure & Amenities - £98.1k adverse.

Page 2 of 4

Unclassified

a. Ards LC £76.2k adverse (mainly momentum fitness and café and vending); Comber LC £40.4k adverse (mainly momentum fitness, tennis and membership), Portaferry Sports Centre £9.1k favourable and Londonderry Park £12.4k favourable. Plans are being formulated to try to boost fitness income at Ards and Comber. These include using a dedicated member of staff to focus on new member sales and a recently appointed Gym Manager will focus on boosting gym membership. The Gym Manager will, also, focus on developing small classes which industry experts believe is a major way of attracting new members. b. Community Halls/Centres income is £11.4k better than budget to date. c. Cemeteries income is £14.0k better than budget to date. d. Bangor 10k Road Race income is £12.5k adverse to date – offset by similar reduction in expenditure (see 4e above). e. Football Development income is currently £10.3k adverse but this is expected to reduce as the year progresses. 6. Community and Culture - £285.6k adverse. a. Community Partnership is £20.0k adverse but this is offset by a similar favourable variance on expenditure – see 3b above. b. Peace 4 grant income is £272.6k adverse but this is offset by a similar favourable variance on project spend – see 3d above. c. Arts Summer Programme is £6.4k better than budget to date. 7. Environmental Health - £16.6k adverse. a. Affordable Warmth grant is £26.8k less than budgeted. Associated expenditure is being reduced in line with the grant reduction. There are indications that the grant allocation may increase later this year. b. Food Safety & Food Hygiene Rating grant income is £3.9k better than budget to date.

BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT By Directorate and Service

Period 8 - November 2017

Note Year to Date Year to Date Variance Annual Variance Actual Budget Budget £ £ £ £ %

Community & Wellbeing

100 Community & Wellbeing HQ 157,722 136,200 21,522 200,300 15.8 110 Environmental Health 1,010,812 987,050 23,762 1,489,000 2.4 120 Community and Culture 1,135,547 1,242,000 (106,453) 1,769,100 8.6 130 Leisure and Amenities 3,090,112 3,230,400 (140,288) 5,036,500 4.3

Totals 5,394,193 5,595,650 (201,457) 8,494,900 3.6

Page 3 of 4

Unclassified

BUDGETARY CONTROL REPORT By Income and Expenditure

Period 8 - November 2017

Expenditure Income Note Actual Budget Variance Actual Budget Variance £ £ £

Community & Wellbeing

100 Community & Wellbeing HQ 157,722 136,200 21,522 - - - 110 Environmental Health 1,323,422 1,316,300 7,122 (312,610) (329,250) 16,640 120 Community and Culture 1,577,214 1,969,300 (392,086) (441,667) (727,300) 285,633 130 Leisure and Amenities 4,795,330 5,033,700 (238,370) (1,705,218) (1,803,300) 98,082

Totals 7,853,688 8,455,500 (601,812) (2,459,495) (2,859,850) 400,355

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Committee notes this report.

Page 4 of 4

Unclassified

ITEM 5

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Community and Wellbeing

Date of Meeting 17 January 2018

Responsible Director Director of Community and Wellbeing

Responsible Head of Head of Leisure and Amenities Service

Date of Report 21 December 2017

File Reference SD109

Legislation Recreation and Youth services Order (1986)

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:

Subject Ards and North Down Sports Forum

Attachments Appendix1-Sports Forum Applications for Noting and Approving December 2017 Appendix2-Unsuccessful Sports Forum Grants Applications December 2017

Members will be aware that on the 26th August 2015 Council delegated authority to the Ards and North Down Sports Forum Borough, in order to allow it to administer sports grants funding on behalf of the Council. £25,000 had been allocated within the 2017/2018 revenue budget for this purpose.

The Council further authorised the Forum under delegated powers to award grants of up to £250. Grants above £250 still require Council approval. In addition, the Council requested that regular updates are reported to members.

During December 2017, the Forum received a total of 8 grant applications; 4 of which were for Travel and Accommodation, 1 of which was for Equipment, 1 of which was for coaching, we also had 2 Gold Card Applications.

Page 1 of 2

Unclassified

A summary of the applications are detailed in the attached Appendix 1 December 2017.

A total of 1 of the application(s) failed to meet the specified criteria. The reasons for the unsuccessful application(s) are detailed on the attached Appendix 2, Sports Forum Applications Failed December 2017.

For information, the annual budget and spend to date on grant categories is as follows:

November 2017 Annual Budget Funding Awarded Remaining December 2017 Budget Travel and Accommodation* 13,000.00 480 1825.28 Coaching* 3,000.00 165 2486.25 Equipment * 3,500.00 938.64 -4128.97 Events 4,000.00 0 1505.49 Seeding 500.00 0 500 Anniversary 1,000.00 0 1000 Gold Cards Issued during the period December 2017 is 1

Net Remaining: £3188.05

* The proposed remaining budget for Travel & Accommodation of £1825.28 is based on a proposed award of £480 with reclaimed costs of £70.56 in this period as listed in Appendix 1(A). The proposed remaining budget for Equipment of £-4128.97 is based on a proposed award of £938.64. The proposed remaining budget for Coaching of £2486.25 is based on proposed award of £165.00 in this period as listed in Appendix 1(C). It should be noted that there is an overspend in the equipment funding element of the grant scheme but this can be covered from an underspend in other elements. There will be no impact on overall budgets.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council approves the attached applications for financial assistance for sporting purposes valued at above £250, and that the applications approved by the forum (valued at below £250) are noted.

As agreed by Council any applications which meet the guidelines for the remainder of the year will be honoured through the reallocation from the underspend of the Councils capital grant scheme.

Page 2 of 2

Appendix 1 – December 2017

(A)Traveling and Accommodation (for noting) Name Type of Grant Representing Sport Competition Location Date(s) of Amount Competition Recommended Ryan Stirling Travel/Accommodation Northern Taekwondo Berghem Oss, Holland 26th November £120 Ireland Championships 2017 Josh McVea Travel/Accommodation Northern Taekwondo Berghem Oss, Holland 26th November £120 Ireland Championships 2017 Luke Stirling Travel/Accommodation Northern Taekwondo Berghem Oss, Holland 26th November £120 Ireland Championships 2017 Michael Donnelly Travel/Accommodation Northern Taekwondo Berghem Oss, Holland 26th November £120 Ireland Championships 2017

A) Reclaimed Travel/Accommodation costs (for noting) Name Type of Grant Representing Sport Competition Location Date(s) of Amount Amount Reason Competition Awarded reclaimed Reclaimed Emil Travel/Accommodation Ulster Surf Irish Open Portrush 7th October 2017 £50 £50 Receipts did not Lazarescu Kayaking Championships correspond

Josh Travel/Accommodation N. Ireland Taekwondo Chang Ung Cup Glasgow, 5th November £100 Receipts didn’t McVea Scotland 2017 £7.52 correspond with application Ashleigh Travel/Accommodation N. Ireland Taekwondo Chang Ung Cup Glasgow, 5th November £100 £7.52 Receipts didn’t McVea Scotland 2017 correspond with application William Travel/Accommodation N. Ireland Taekwondo Chang Ung Cup Glasgow, 5th November £100 £5.52 Receipts didn’t Gilchrist Scotland 2017 correspond with application

Appendix 1 – December 2017

(B) Equipment costs (for approval) Name of Club Description of Project Funding Description Funding Requested Amount Recommended

NI Cross Equipment will be used to support Angling Chairs: £43.88 (x12) £938.64 £938.64 Community the development of new sections, Keepnets: £432.00 (x12) Angling help to host events and as training Umbrellas: £290.76 (x12) equipment. The equipment will aid the delivery to members with disabilities and children along with ensuring safety during inclement weather conditions.

(C) Coaching Grants (for noting) Name Type of Grant Name of Course Number of Date(s) of Course Cost to Amount Participants Club/Individual Recommended Scrabo Striders Coaching Leadership in 2 17th December 2017 £220 £165 Running Fitness

Gold Card Grants (for noting) (No cost to Council or Northern Community Leisure Trust to provide access to facilities) Name Type of Training Venue Representing Competition Location Date(s) of Competition Decision Grant Chloe Lemon Gold Card Not Stated Northern Not stated N/a N/a Unsuccessful Ireland (See Appendix 2) Curtis Filmer Gold Card Ards Leisure Great Britain 2018 European Wushu Tbilissi, Georgia May 2018 Successful Centre Championships

Appendix 2 - Unsuccessful Sports Forum Grants December 2017

Unsuccessful Sports Forum Applications December 2017

During December 2017, 1 applications submitted failed to meet the specified criteria.

1. Chloe Lemon – Chloe applied for the Gold Card scheme as she is currently part of the Northern Ireland Development Squad. Chloe’s application does not meet all the necessary criteria as the selection/support letter did not give event dates for this competition. Sports Development has advised Chloe that if she is able to provide this evidence we will be able to reassess her claim accordingly.

Unclassified

ITEM 6

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Community and Wellbeing

Date of Meeting 17 January 2018

Responsible Director Director of Community and Wellbeing

Responsible Head of Head of Leisure and Amenities Service

Date of Report 22 December 2017

File Reference CW32

Legislation Recreation and Youth Service (NI) Order 1986

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:

Subject Mary Peters Trust

Attachments Letter from Mary Peters Trust

As Members may be aware the Mary Peters Trust is a voluntary organisation which distributes funds to the young sportspeople which assists towards the significant costs in developing sporting excellence.

A request has been received from the above Trust for continuing support towards the work of the organisation for the year 2018/19.

Whilst Council also delivers sporting awards to local sports people through the Sports Forum the additional funding from this Trust has been critical over the years in providing much needed support above and beyond Council capabilities to the young sportspeople of the Borough who would otherwise have considerable personal costs towards funding their sporting development.

Last year over 200 young people from across Northern Ireland benefited from £80,000 of funding from the Trust. Nineteen of the recipients were from the Borough and they received £12,800. The list of recipients which included young people from across the Borough and representing thirteen sports is attached.

Page 1 of 2

Unclassified

It is proposed to continue to support the above organisation in a similar way to previous years with a Council contribution of £3,000. This can be met from current budgets.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council approves the contribution of £3,000 to the Mary Peters Trust.

Page 2 of 2

Unclassified

ITEM 7

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Community and Wellbeing

Date of Meeting 17 January 2018

Responsible Director Director of Community and Wellbeing

Responsible Head of Head of Community & Culture Service

Date of Report 22 December 2017

File Reference CW32

Legislation Commission Implementing Regulations including (EU) Nos 288/2014, 1303/2013 and 1299/2013

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:

Subject Peace IV Partnership Meetings

Attachments Copies of Minutes from June to December 2017

Attached are copies of minutes from the Ards and North Down Peace IV Partnership meetings that took place between June 2016 and October 2017 for members information.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the contents of the minutes are noted.

Page 1 of 1

ANDPEACEIV 13.06.16

ARDS and NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL SHADOW PEACE IV PARTNERSHIP

MONDAY 13 JUNE 2016

A shadow meeting of the Ards and North Down Borough Council PEACE IV Partnership was held in the Craig Room, Town Hall, Bangor at 3.00 pm on the above date.

Present:

In the Chair: Alderman B Keery

Elected Members: Alderman A Carson Alderman R Gibson Alderman W Irvine Alderman A McDowell Councillor A Leslie – 3.25pm Councillor G Walker – 3.30pm Statutory Agencies Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath – PSNI, North Down Area Commander Mr O Brady – NI Housing Executive Ms K Scott – Education Authority, SE Region Mr R Perera – South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust Mr P Walsh – South Eastern Regional College Mr K Doherty – Youth Justice Agency Officers in Attendance Mrs J Nixey (Head of Service, Community and Wellbeing) Mrs N Dorrian (External Funding Programme Manager) Mrs G McCready (PEACE IV Officer) Mrs L Bradshaw (Finance Officer) Miss L Roulston (Grants Administrator) Mrs J Shields (Administrative Assistant)

1

ANDPEACEIV 13.06.16

1. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR

It was proposed by Alderman Gibson, seconded by Alderman Irvine that Alderman Keery chair the meeting. The Chair asked all in attendance to introduce themselves and give a brief synopsis of their involvement of Peace/EU funding experience.

NOTED.

2. APOLOGIES

Apologies for inability to attend were received from Mr G Bannister (Director of Community and Wellbeing), Councillors McLean and Thompson and a representative from the Public Health Agency. An apology for lateness was received from Councillors Leslie and Walker.

NOTED.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

No declarations of interest were made. Members were advised that a declaration of interest could be made at any time during the meeting.

NOTED.

4. PRESENTATION FROM BLU ZEBRA (CONSULTANTS PREPARING THE PEACE IV PLAN) ON DRAFT PEACE IV STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN

The Chairman (Alderman Keery) welcomed and introduced Therese Hogg from Blu Zebra and explained that Blu Zebra were awarded the tender to prepare the draft strategy and action plan for ANDBC PEACE IV Partnership. He invited Ms Hogg to commence her presentation.

Ms Hogg informed Members of the aims and priority areas of the programme, and informed Members of the budget of £3,002,991 and explained that that amount was to be spent across 3 themes as follows:-

Children and Young People (£554,546) Shared Spaces and Services (£936,981) Building Positive Relations (£1,147,305) Programme Cost – Staffing and Overheads (£364,159)

A total of 548 people were consulted during the process to date (307 engaged in works shops or face to face meetings and 241 completed the e-survey). A range of consultee including Elected Members, senior council staff, statutory bodies, voluntary organisations, youth, men, women’s groups, section 75 groups etc.

2

ANDPEACEIV 13.06.16

Relevant strategies considered in the development of the draft plan.

The main issues which caused tension in the local area included anti-social behaviour, flags and emblems, young people with nothing to do, religious and political differences, lack of facilities/activities, lack of visible policing, parades, economic deprivation/unemployment, social deprivation, increase in crime and racial discrimination.

Some of the emerging issues in AND – Children and Young People were:-

• Unemployment and educational underachievement - There was a lack of support for young people to address unemployment and underachievement. • Disengaged young people especially older young people -There was little motivation to get involved in local activities and engage with one another to build positive relations. • Lack of facilities for Young People -Lack of activities for teenagers, results in anti-social behaviour issues. • Lack of interaction across different classes, cultures, etc. - Segregated school system, a need to change parental mind-sets around shared opportunities in schools. • Need for early years’ intervention work - Ages 0-4 years, early intervention work to tackle sectarianism and racism within families. • Addressing fear and intimidation within communities - Paramilitary activity and drug dealing within deprived communities and residential estates, resulting in fear and intimidation. • Influence of parents and peer group- Children and young people and their parents need to see the wider benefits to engage. • Lack of civic leadership and positive role models for children and young people. • Anti-social behaviour, drugs and alcohol -There was a need for greater education on the negative impacts.

Some of the emerging issues in AND – Shared Space and Services were:-

• Lack of shared spaces in the Borough – a need and potential to develop a mix of shared spaces for single identity and mixed communities.

3

ANDPEACEIV 13.06.16

• Residential segregation - a need to examine how to make single identify areas more welcoming especially if within them there were buildings from which public services were delivered. • Sports opportunities for young people - There was a lack of interaction across different sporting groups in the Borough- Events, Sports Development and Parks can assist in the creation of shared communities locally. • Greater use of vacant properties in the area - vacant properties in the area which should be developed as shared spaces before building new facilities. Linking with other programmes like the rural development, village renewal theme to transform these vacant properties. • Demarcation of residential areas - Flags, emblems, murals and kerb painting demarcate territory within single identity areas across the Borough – a need for increased dialogue around those issues. • Addressing silent sectarianism and racism – There was an element of denial that sectarianism exists in the area - polite neighbours live side by side. There was polite acceptance of one another and people peacefully coexist. • Possibility of using the environment as a link between communities- The natural environmental assets of the area were identified as a means of linking people in the area – loughs, sea, greenways, parks, etc.

Some of the emerging issues in AND-Building Positive Relations were:-

• Programmes for minority groups, including those with disabilities - There was increasing diversity in some communities. • Community apathy and lack of volunteers - a need for capacity and confidence building to improve community leadership - particularly young women • Lack of programmes promoting different pathways to employment and education - Issues around educational underachievement -significant issues in regard of educational disadvantage in many PUL communities – resulting in drugs and other criminal activity. • Dealing with the legacy of the past - large number displaced from Belfast residing in the Borough. Ongoing problems relating to mental health and wellbeing amongst those most affected by the Troubles. Some paramilitary issues too. • Class issues need to be identified and addressed - Residential segregation on a class basis as well as on a religious and cultural basis was identified. Class and social issues that divided people – not sectarianism. Barriers between disadvantaged areas and more affluent areas need to be broken down. • Ongoing influence of paramilitaries and intimidation - Paramilitarism had an influence across the area from a number of different factions. • Lack of long term sustainable programmes - There was a need for programmes with longer term developmental frameworks to be developed in partnership with bigger providers which could assist address issues of bureaucracy and focus on building lasting relationships and which engage statutory providers as well as community and voluntary groups. • Need to address ongoing sectarianism and racism - Silent sectarianism exists. There was a need for more acceptance of minority communities in the

4

ANDPEACEIV 13.06.16

Borough which includes religious and ethnic minorities. There was seen a link between sectarianism, racism and educational disadvantage. • Need to tackle rural isolation and access to services - New Community Planning Powers for Councils means opportunities to address issues around service provision in the Borough. Rural isolation and access to services such as transport, leisure facilities etc. were particular issue for the Borough. • Need for better community cohesion between groups in the Borough – There was quite a lot of competition and division between community groups; there was a need to try to bring groups together to work more collaboratively. There was a lack of collaboration across different villages • Need to create awareness of different cultures and traditions- There was a need for myth busting in local areas around culture and identity. A need for cultural awareness programmes • Single identity work – There was a need for capacity building to enable and upskill the community to be able to address issues locally.

The Emerging Actions for Children and Young People were:-

• Development of a leadership programme for young people • Early Intervention programmes • Develop a programme to grow and support volunteering in peace building activities • Develop a programme of activity that encourages greater partnership working across schools • Development of a programme of engagement with parents to include capacity building, volunteering and developing leadership skills. • Explore how to make facilities more accessible and welcoming to young people. Includes issues such as affordability. • Sport and recreation programmes - cross-community and cross border • Promotion of mental health/fitness and wellbeing activities such as the development of cycling groups and horticultural groups Work with PUL community -to influence change, family exposure, address drug dealing, criminal activity, very vulnerable. • Use of the local environment, the lough etc.as “common pulls or levers” to get people engaged • Programme exploring how to engage more effectively with youth organisations, churches and faith groups. • Intergenerational programme aimed at developing linkages between children and the elderly. • Resources for funded staff to deliver projects as opposed to volunteers • Use of the arts and music centred projects. Draw on best practice from reimaging programmes; use existing arts and music forums

The Emerging Actions for Shared Space and Services were:-

• Make use of existing vacant properties to develop shared spaces • Develop better physical connections between different areas such as villages across the Borough. Paths, greenways etc. • Increase accessibility of existing shared spaces/venues

5

ANDPEACEIV 13.06.16

• Link with community planning to identify solutions to share space across different sectors • Creation of new shared spaces • Use community centres to engage more people – creation of community hub with spaces for engagement in programmes • Host cultural diversity festivals • Develop a shared history programme of activity - the Famine, the 1798 rebellion etc. Link with museums and libraries Identify gaps in provision of shared space across the Borough • Multiple use of existing single use building - would require and result in more information and better services • Large community civic events in the Borough - programmes of activities with cross community groups to increase participation • Use arts as a medium to help build integration. • Use social media as a way of connecting local communities • Reimaging Projects that explore alternatives to flags and territorial demarcation. Include dialogue and development work • Create alternative spaces and engagement to paramilitary influences • Projects that can address territorial demarcation • Use of informal spaces as meeting places

The Emerging Actions for Building Positive Relations were:-

• Create safe environments in to initiate and conduct hard conversations. • Actions to support existing and create new community networking activities between communities • Connect businesses and community together • Cultural history programme that explores shared history. • Tackle the legacy of the conflict through mental health and wellbeing programmes • Create long term cross border links • Development of sports programmes that were cross community and cross border in nature • Use music, arts, technology and animation that addresses cohesiveness and builds lasting relationships • Develop citizenship programmes • Cultural expression/ exploration programmes • Leadership programmes for different groupings • Develop sense of belonging programmes e.g. cultural festival, food festival, focus on the environment • Programme of engagement with Orange Order/Bands

The barriers to implementing projects and actions were:-

• Single identity estates and paramilitary influence plus gatekeepers • Lack of shared education • Fear and intimidation • Lack of confidence in the community to participate in programmes – stepping stone approach needed • Apathy and lack of volunteers

6

ANDPEACEIV 13.06.16

• Lack of welcoming spaces • Silent and Invisible sectarianism • Ongoing challenge was how to get to the most excluded groups • Need for a shared understanding of our shared history • How to include excluded groups e.g. those experiencing mental health issues

The next steps were to:-

• Conclude Gaps Analysis across strategies & possible partners • SCPP & Council – approval of draft plan for Stage 1 • Stage 1 submission to SEUPB- overarching programme ideas- 21st June 2016 • Programme Design • Budget Allocations • Stage 2 submission - detailed Strategy and Action Plan- September 2016 • LOO April 2017

In response to a query raised by Councillor Walker, Ms Hogg stated that it was an unusual process to design the programme and partnership all at the same time.

After a query raised by Alderman Gibson it was confirmed that 100% of funding was available through PEACE IV for projects.

In response to a query raised by Mr Brady (NIHE), Mrs Nixey (Head of Service, Community and Wellbeing) informed Members that there were 3 different ways to deliver the grants programme, these were; small grant, delivery through tender or partner delivery.

Chief Inspector McGrath (PSNI) raised a concern regarding double funding. Ms Scott (EA) also expressed concern that some of the work was already being done, she also expressed concern how outcomes would be measured.

Members were informed that this was only stage 1 of the process, the time line from SEUPB was 6 weeks to stage 1 approval then 8 weeks to develop stage 2. More specific details around projects to ensure there was no depreciation rather added value

The Chairman thanked the Ms Hogg for her informative presentation.

5. REPORT ON DRAFT PEACE IV STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Copy of the above report with Draft Strategy and Action Plan.

The report advised that the EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation was a unique programme aimed at reinforcing progress towards a peaceful and stable society in Northern Ireland and the Border Region of Ireland. It represented the European Union’s commitment to supporting the peace process across the region and was initially launched in 1995.

7

ANDPEACEIV 13.06.16

The PEACE IV Programme would provide support to projects that contribute towards the promotion of greater levels of peace and reconciliation. The Programme would also place a strong emphasis on promoting cross-community relations and understanding in order to create a more cohesive society. Projects must be able to tangibly demonstrate how they would contribute towards the results and outputs of the Programme to create a shared understanding of the past and a fundamental change in attitudes and behaviour. The PEACE IV Programme aimed to build upon the experience of previous programmes by tackling the remaining challenges that exist in building positive relationships and developing shared spaces. Local Authorities across Northern Ireland and the border counties have been asked to prepare action plans which demonstrate commitment to tackling real and complex issues, such as racism and sectarianism, which prevent the benefits of a united and shared community from being realised. The strategic objectives for each of the three local authority relevant themes were:

Strategic Theme Objective Children and Enhancing the capacity of children and young people to form Young People positive and effective relationships with others of a different background and make a positive contribution to building a cohesive society Shared Spaces The creation of a more cohesive society through an increased and Services provision of shared spaces and services Building The promotion of positive relations characterised by respect, and Positive where cultural diversity is celebrated and people can live, learn Relations and socialise together, free from prejudice, hate and intolerance

Following a significant public consultation exercise, the attached Draft PEACE IV Strategy and Action Plan had been developed, which represented the views of the community on the emerging priorities for the area and possible initiatives.

The Draft PEACE IV plan would be subject to a two stage application process. The stage one assessment entails the completion of a succinct online application form, by 21 June 2016. The content of the application form would be based on details included in the draft plan including:

1. How the project contributed towards achieving the stated results and outputs of the PEACE IV Programme 2. Why it was important for the project to work on a cross boarder basis 3. How the proposed partnership was the best possible delivery mechanism.

Successful stage one applicants would be invited to submit a stage two application in September 2016. Stage two of the process would include the submission of a detailed plan which would provide more information on the specific projects identified and would be subject to a robust appraisal. The two stage application process would provide additional time to work up detailed projects for inclusion in the final plan.

8

ANDPEACEIV 13.06.16

Applications would be assessed by the Joint Secretariat of SEUPB with the decision regarding funding awards being made by the SEUPB Steering Committee. The Steering Committee aimed to make a final decision on applications within 36 weeks from the receipt of application in the case of a rolling call.

In advance of submission of the stage one application and establishment of a full Ards and North Down Borough Council PEACE IV Partnership, to endorse plan and manage the programme, SEUPB have confirmed that the Shadow Partnership should approve the Draft Plan. That would inform the stage one application which must be submitted by 21 June 2016. The Draft Strategy and Action Plan would also be presented to Ards and North Down Community and Well Being Committee on Wednesday 15th June 2016 and Strategic Community Planning Partnership on 21st June 2016 for endorsement.

RECOMMENDED that the Shadow Partnership approve the Draft PEACE IV Strategy and Action Plan and endorsed the stage one application to SEUPB.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Carson, seconded by Alderman Irvine, that the report be approved and adopted.

AGREED.

6. REPORT ON PEACE IV SHADOW PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Copy of the above report with Draft Shadow Partnership Agreement .

The report informed Members as part of the involvement in the PEACE IV programme, Ards and North Down Borough Council PEACE IV Partnership was required to produce a partnership agreement. The EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation 2014-2020, Northern Ireland and the Border Region of Ireland Programme Rules define that was an agreement between the Lead Partner (Ards and North Down Borough Council) and another organisation (not being an individual) who was a party to the agreement and which defined their respective duties, functions and responsibilities in the implementation of the project. 3.5 of the Programme Rules specifically states that the Lead Partner would be required to provide a partnership agreement showing the involvement of each partner organisation, their roles and responsibilities and how the project would be managed.

There were further requirements contained within the PEACE IV EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation 2014-2020, Northern Ireland and the Border Region of Ireland - Guide for Applicants, that contained requirements on the governance arrangements and partner details all of which could be encompassed in a partnership agreement.

Attached for Members consideration was a draft shadow partnership agreement. A full partnership agreement would be presented for Members consideration when all Members were appointed.

RECOMMENDED that the Shadow Partnership notes the report.

9

ANDPEACEIV 13.06.16

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Irvine, seconded by Alderman Gibson, that the report be noted.

NOTED.

7. REPORT ON APPOINTMENT OF SOCIAL PARTNERS

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Copy of the above report

The report advised that guidance issued by SEUPB required the PEACE IV Partnership to be made up of elected members, statutory agencies and social partners, who had expertise in the key priority areas.

The Ards and North Down PEACE IV Partnership would comprise of the following:

 9 x elected member’s representative of the political make up of Ards and North Down Borough Council. The D’Hondt principle would be applied as per normal practice in Council. The 9 elected members were representative of the political make up of Council and would be selected to join the PEACE IV Partnership at the Council’s Annual Meeting in June, from which three would be appointed to the recruitment panel for the social partners  7 statutory agencies. Each statutory body listed below has been requested to nominate a relevant staff member to the PEACE IV Partnership: o Police Service of Northern Ireland, o Northern Ireland Housing Executive, o Education Authority, o Youth Justice Agency, o Public Health Agency, o South Eastern Health & Social Care Trust o South Eastern Regional College  8 social partners – an open and transparent process would be used to recruit those members. They would bring a range of peace building skills and expertise to the table.

In relation to the social partners, the business sector and trade union appointments would be sought from the local Chambers of Trade and Trade Unions. The remaining social partner appointments would be made through a public application process and one position would be allocated to each sector. The following sectors would be targeted together with an advert in local press calling for applications.

o Business Sector o Trade Union o Community Sector o Youth Sector o Women’s Representative o BME Representative o Older People o Voluntary Sector

10

ANDPEACEIV 13.06.16

It was recommended that the recruitment panel be convened as soon as possible to appoint the social partners.

RECOMMENDED the Shadow Partnership approved that the recruitment panel commence the process of appointing social partners to the PEACE IV Partnership.

Members were advised that the next stage would be to decide an interview panel with elected Members, those Members would then commence with training. It was agreed that elected Members would meet following the meeting to agree the interview panel.

The External Funding Programme Manager asked all Members to complete the Declaration of Interest form on the back of the report.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Councillor Walker, seconded by K Scott (Education Authority), that the report be approved and adopted.

AGREED. 8. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

(a) Information form Statutory Partners

The Chair (Alderman Keery) informed Members that an application would be submitted to SEUPB with regards to PEACE IV funding and part of this required information from partners. An information sheet would be provided for the statutory partners and they were asked to complete and return the form to the Peace IV Officer.

(b) Date of Next Meeting

Members were advised the next meeting date would be convened when further information was received from SEUPB as to the application process. It was anticipated that that would take place in August but Members would be provided with at least 10 days notice. At that meeting Members would also be presented with a schedule of meetings up to 31 March 2017.

NOTED.

9. TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 4.35pm.

11

ARDS and NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL PEACE IV PARTNERSHIP WEDNESDAY 7TH SEPTEMBER 2016

A meeting of the Ards and North Down Borough Council PEACE IV Partnership was held in the Signal Centre of Business Excellence, Bangor at 3.00 pm on the above date.

Present:

In the Chair: Councillor E Thompson (3pm – 3.45pm) Alderman B Keery (3.45pm – 6pm)

Elected Members: Alderman A Carson Alderman R Gibson Alderman W Irvine Alderman A McDowell (3.30pm) Councillor G Walker

Statutory Agencies Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath – PSNI, Ards and North Down Area Commander Mr O Brady – NI Housing Executive Amanda Ashe NI Housing Executive Mr R Perera – South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust Mr K Doherty – Youth Justice Agency

Social Partners Ms S Henderson – Community Sector Ms S Bailie – Voluntary Sector Ms D Beattie – Older Peoples Sector Mr P Wray – Younger Peoples Sector Ms A Blayney – Womens Groups Ms J McNulty – Trade Unions

Officers in Attendance Graeme Bannister (Director of Community and Wellbeing) Mrs J Nixey (Head of Community and Culture) Mrs N Dorrian (External Funding Programme Manager) Mrs G McCready (PEACE IV Officer) Miss L Roulston (Grants Administrator) Miss L McCamley (Administrative Officer)

1

1. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR

The PEACE IV Officer welcomed and introduced everyone to the first full meeting of Ards and North Down Borough Council PEACE IV Partnership and advised that the first item of the agenda was to nominate a chair for the meeting. It was proposed by Alderman Irvine and seconded by Alderman Gibson that Councillor Thompson would chair the meeting. Councillor Thompson then advised the members that he would be leaving the meeting early at approximately 3.45pm.

AGREED. 2. APOLOGIES

Apologies for inability to attend were received from Mrs L Bradshaw (PEACE IV Finance Officer), Councillor Alan Leslie, Ray Gilbert (Education Authority), Katy Radford (BME Social Partner) and Leigh Nelson (Business Social Partner).

NOTED.

3. WELCOME FROM SOCIAL PARTNERS AND INTRODUCTIONS The Chair (Councillor Thompson) asked the newly appointed Social Partners to introduce themselves, their nominating organisation and sector. The Social Partners introduced themselves and informed the meeting of the sector they represented. This information could be found in the following table:

Name Nominating body Sector Sandra Henderson Co. Down Rural Community Social - Community Network Shelia Bailie Peninsula Healthy Living Social - Voluntary Partnership Dorothy Beattie AGE North Down & Ards Social - Older People Pete Wray Bangor Alternatives Social - Younger People Alison Blayney Kilcooley Womens Centre Social - Womens Groups Janette McNulty NI Committee- Irish Congress Social – Trade Union of Trade Unions

Social partners who were absent from the meeting included:

Katy Radford Institute of Conflict Research Social - BME

Leigh Nelson Newtownards Chamber of Social – Business Sector Trade

NOTED.

2

4. MINUTES OF SHADOW PARTNERSHIP MEETING DATED 13 JUNE 2016 PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Copy of the minutes of PEACE IV Shadow Partnership meeting dated 13 June 2016

RECOMMENDED that the partnership agrees the minutes of the meeting held on 13 June 2016

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Alderman Robert Gibson seconded by Alderman Wesley Irvine that the minutes are agreed.

Item 3 - Declarations of Interest. All Members were reminded that they are required to complete a declaration of interest form and this must include their interest in all groups and organisations including community groups they are involved in. Declarations of interest forms will be provided to the new social Members and a reminder was given that all Elected Members and statutory partners are to advise Officers of any changes. The PEACE IV Officer advised Members that the following matters would be dealt with through the agenda. (1) Item 4 – Timelines. This will be dealt with under item 6 on the agenda (2) Item 6 - Shadow partnership agreement. This will be dealt with under item 10 on the agenda (3) Item 8 -Any Other Business re Dates of Future meetings. This will be dealt with under Item 11 AGREED

5. SEUPB’S PEACE IV CITIZENS SUMMARY PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Citizens Summary produced by SEUPB. The Externally Funded Programmes Manager directed the Members to Appendix 2, Citizens Summary produced by SEUPB. This 22-page booklet was intended to give all Members, an overview of the PEACE IV Programme. NOTED.

6. PEACE IV UPDATE REPORT PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Update Report, Executive Office Correspondence Dated 15th July 2016 and SEUPB Correspondence dated 4th August 2016)

The Head of Community and Culture referred Members to the report, highlighting the process involved in submitting the stage 1 application by 21 June 2016 and the resubmission date of 11 August 2016. The officer referred to item 6 Appendix 3 b, as response to the Councils letter to the Executive Committee asking for clarification as to the impact of the results of the recent Referendum on EU membership. In respect of item 6 appendix 3 c the Head of Community and Culture stated that the correspondence confirmed SEUPB’s commitment to the PEACE IV Programme, but to mitigate against the risks associated with the UK’s withdrawal from the EU it was prudent for awards to be made by the Managing Authority for the period of 2 years to the Autumn 2018 with a view to having claims submitted to the EC by December 2018. It was further noted that plans should be submitted on the basis of the original timeframe but where possible activities should be prioritised up to the

3

Autumn 2018. The officer also highlighted that the correspondence clarified that although funding was initially ring fenced for Councils, this was no longer the case. Awards would be made on the robustness of stage 2 applications. Those which do not meet the required standard will result in a lower funding award.

The Officer advised the Members that a meeting was held with SEUPB on 19th August 2016 to discuss the implications of Brexit.

The Head of Community and Culture stated that a break clause should be built into the stage 2 applications, which would be subject to earlier assessment by the Steering Committee in November 2016. Partnerships would be notified of the assessment outcomes so that delivery could start early in 2017.

In response to a query posed by Owen Brady regarding the two-year timeline, the Head of Community and Culture explained that the Council were confident that most projects can be completed within the timeframe (Autumn 2018). In response to a further query by Mr Brady regarding reduction of funding, the Officer outlined that the amount originally ring fenced for the AND PEACE IV Plan was approximately £3 million, however SEUPB had indicated that funding was not ring fenced and rather awards would be made based on the robustness of the stage 2 submission. She also stated that it was not guaranteed that the programme would run until 2020.

The Officer advised Members that the application process was extremely competitive. The Officer explained to the partnership that they should expect an outcome of Stage one by 14th September 2016. The deadline for submission of the Stage two document was set for 23rd September 2016. In response to a query posed by Alderman Gibson, regarding ring fencing, the Officer explained that it would be down to the Partnership and PEACE IV Officers to provide a high standard project plan in order to obtain funding. In response to a query posed by Mrs McNulty (Social Partner for Trade Unions) the Officer advised Members that the PEACE IV programme would not be in a position to accept bids from potential delivery agents until January 2017 at the earliest.

In response to a query posed by Alison Blayney (Social Partner for Women’s sector) regarding priority themes, the Officer explained that the budget for the PEACE IV programme; “is rigid in terms of the programme themes and therefore must stay with the three main priorities which will be outlined in more detail during Agenda Item 8.”

In response to a query posed by Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath – PSNI, North Down Area Commander, regarding administration costs, the Officer said that the costs would be considerably less that previous PEACE Programmes. The Officer also stated that it was envisaged that the majority of the projects will be offered out to Tender, this will further reduce administrative costs. NOTED.

4

7. SEUPB CORRESPONDENCE DATED 24TH AUGUST, SOLACE CORRESPONDENCE DATED 26 AUGUST 2016, SEUPB CORRESPONDENCE DATED 2ND SEPTEMBER 2016.

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: SEUPB Correspondence dated 24th August, SOLACE Correspondence dated 26 August 2016, SEUPB Correspondence dated 2nd September 2016.

The Chairman (Councillor Thompson) referred Members to Appendix 4, further correspondence. The Head of Community and Culture gave Members a brief overview of the documents and explained that due to the tight deadlines of the overall PEACE IV project there will not be second opportunity for submission of Stage Two. NOTED. 8. PRESENTATION FROM BLU ZEBRA (CONSULTANTS PREPARING THE PEACE IV PLAN) AND OVERVIEW OF THE PEACE IV PROJECTS

The Chairman (Cllr Eddie Thompson) welcomed and introduced Therese Hogg from Blu Zebra and invited her to make her presentation. Ms Hogg (Blu Zebra) presented a short presentation detailing the back ground to the development of the indicative projects under consideration. Following the presentation by Therese Hogg (Blu Zebra) Councillor Eddie Thompson gave his apologies.

It was proposed by Alderman Irvine, seconded by Alderman Gibson and AGREED that Alderman B Keery be appointed to the chair for the remainder of the meeting.

AGREED.

Following the presentation, Members were referred to the tabled papers marked item 8. Item 8 detailed the proposed projects which have been developed following the public consultation exercise and co-design workshops.

Children and Young People

Capacity Building and Youth Leadership Programme. It was highlighted by a PEACE IV Officer that the aim for the project was to add to existing youth forums, or create new ones, but there should not be duplicate projects ongoing in the Borough.

Social Partner for Young People, (Pete Wray) highlighted to the members, that there was currently no formal youth forums, led by youths in the Borough. He highlighted that there previously was a Peninsula Youth Forum but that this no longer exists. Mr Wray also highlighted the need for a shared forum across the Borough, he also advised that budget should be spent solely on

5

Youth Workers who will engage with the young people, build relationships, listen to them and talk to them.

Social Partner for Community, Sandra Henderson agreed that the Borough has a need to actively engage with young people who are hard to reach or not currently engaged. She also made note that Millisle had an established Youth Forum.

In a response to a query raised by Alderman Keery, the Head of Community and Culture confirmed that the Council was committed to working with key agencies to develop a Youth Forum for the Borough.

The Head of Community and Culture also advised Members that that phase one (Developing the voice of the young people) and phase two (Peer to peer mentoring programme) would complement each other and the project would be tendered to ensure an organisation with the required expertise would deliver it. The Officer also clarified that Partnership Members/organisation could bid to deliver tendered projects, either individually or as consortia, but conflicts of interest would have to be managed appropriately.

In response to a query raised by K Doherty (Youth Justice Agency) regarding the age range aim of the projects, which currently is set at 16-25, it was advised by Alderman R Gibson that this age range for Youths historically came from the Education Board. Several members suggested the age range should be lowered to accommodate younger teens. Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath (PSNI, North Down Area Commander), suggested the lower age limit should begin at 12.

Social Partner for the Voluntary sector Ms S Bailie noted that in relation to the age, and costing that was completed was to suit the original age group (16- 25) and this would be revaluated in the light of lowering the age range.

Phase three Youth Pod Shelters The Head of Community and Culture also advised that the Council could deliver Phase 3. The External Funding Programme Manager explained to the Members that the Community Safety Team have carried out research into the Pod Shelters. The aim was to pilot 4 shelters within the Borough.

In response to a query from Sandra Henderson, Social Partner for Community, External Funding Programme Manager informed Members that the pods were a half moon shape and would be accessible 24hrs.

In response to a query raised by Social Partner Member Dorothy Beattie it was advised that intergenerational activities may be possible within this project heading but that this would be mostly like dealt with under the project heads; Shared Spaces & Services and Building Positive Relations.

In response to a query raised by Mr Wray, the Officer confirmed that significant consultation and research had taken place in regard to the provision of Youth Shelters and maintenance for the project.

6

Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath wished it be stated for the record that: A) The PSNI do not currently have an opinion on the Pods. B) The concern was that they may become a hotspot and not a cure, and C) More consultation was required on location of the pods, but the PSNI look forward to making it work, with a pro-active policing approach.

Chairman Alderman Keery suggested that a photograph of the proposed pods be circulated to members as a matter of urgency. AGREED Early Intervention Programme It was highlighted by the Head of Community and Culture that the project had two elements- preschool and Parenting. The social partner for the Womens sector, Alison Blayney made Members aware that there are other similar programmes to this proposed project were happening in the Borough.

Mr R Perera also commented that a similar project ‘Incredible years’ had been undertaken by Barnardo’s and that any such project would be “difficult to implement.” Mr Perera also advised that this project should contain a good relations element.

Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath wished it be stated for the record that: a) Hate crime was not a massive issue in this area, and b) The PSNI welcomes working on this project.

Discussion surrounding the wording of the project proposal. Agreement was reached that the majority of the Members felt the wording ‘Evidence Based’ was too prescriptive and therefore the language should be changed to reflect this. It was also noted that there would need to be more flexibility in terms of expected outcomes for this area of the project.

Sports and Recreation Programme It was highlighted by the Head of Community and Culture that the focus of the project would be cross community engagement in the area of sports. There would be a variety of sports included, and it aimed to bring groups of people who traditionally did not engage in sports activity, such as women and older people.

In response to a query raised by Alderman Carson regarding the tender of this project, the Officer advised that part of the project could be run by the Council. It was also highlighted that other outside organisations had extensive experience in this area.

In response to a question posed by Mr Owen Brady regarding actively asking groups to interact with communities from different backgrounds, the Head of Community and Culture confirmed that the project will be more focused on people who don’t routinely play sport.

Social partner Alison Blayney commented that in terms of

7

sustainability parks runs and initiatives such as Couch to 5k were very easy to run and inexpensive.

In response to a question asked by Councillor G Walker, Therese Hogg(Blu Zebra) confirmed that the wording ‘Cross-Community’ was religion based but could also incorporate sectarian, racism, and class issues. Intergenerational programmes would also be possible. Mrs Hogg also highlighted that research demonstrated there were opportunities in the area for cross-community sports partnerships, however more work needed to be done to move this forward with a solid plan on pairing groups /leagues across the Borough. Mrs Hogg highlighted that the project would need a proactive approach from the outset.

Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath wished it be stated for the record that: A) The project seemed very positive, more so if there were salaried positions for workers running the project. B) The opportunities could be endless C) The right person/s running this project would be the key to its success.

Mr McGrath and Mr Wray also reiterated that; “Youth workers are not coaches and so the need to have the right person running the project was key.” It was noted that having the use of Council run facilities could reduce overheads and enable the project to be more sustainable.

Shared Spaces & Services Shared Spaces & Services Programme It was highlighted by the Head of Community and Culture that; SEUPB has lead the Council to believe that they are looking to invest and develop a ‘major’ legacy project which would benefit the whole community.

The proposed legacy project would be based at the Councils Heritage site at the Somme / Whitespots location. It is proposed that PEACE funding would go toward an economic appraisal, outline designs, WWII heritage trails and signage as outlined in the documentation.

The officer suggested that this project fits well within the PEACE criteria and could leave a major legacy project, although the balance of funding to complete the scheme was not secure. The PEACE funding would only initiate the scheme and act as a lever to draw in more funding from other sources. The Head of Community and Culture advised that she would seek advice from SEUPB regarding the eligibility of the proposed legacy project. Therese Hogg advised Members that there should be a reserve project in the event that the project was deemed high risk, in the absence of 100% of funding being secured or that EA and design costs were deemed ineligible.

Social Partner Sandra Henderson raised concerns over the location of the project in that it only deals with the top half of the Borough.

Alderman A McDowell also raised concerns in regard to the amount of budget being spent on appraisals. He suggested the funding could go to smaller projects throughout the Borough.

8

Janette McNulty (Social Partner for Trade Unions) also raised concern regarding budget spent on appraisals, adding that appraisals previously completed for PEACE projects has taken a considerable amount of time to complete.

In a response to query posed by Mr R Perera (South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust) regarding match funding, Mrs Nixey replied that EU match funding could not be used in this case, however the Council could look into funding from e.g. Lottery Heritage Fund and the Tourist Board

In response to queries posed by several Members, regarding using the budget to enhance playgrounds, or buildings within the Borough, the Head of Community and Culture said that the proposed project was visionary, and included a cross community, cross boarder element in relation to the 36 Ulster Division and 16th Irish Division and it would leave a long term legacy The Officer also added that the enhancing of playgrounds would not be considered a legacy projects.

Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath wished it be stated for the record that: a) The view on the bigger picture was to invest in the area, and this project incorporates local people past and present. b) The current project proposal on states that the 36th Ulster Division underwent basic training, when more accurately both the 36th Ulster Division and the 16th Irish Division underwent training at this location. Therefore, the wording of the proposal should be amended to reflect this.

When concerning Symbols and Emblems several concerns were raised by members over the training, specifically towards the training of Councillors in this regard and whether this training should be paid for by Council not PEACE IV funding. The Head of Community and Culture explained that the aim is to train civic leaders as those who represent communities. It was noted that civic building should be free from symbols and emblems and should be shared spaces for those work and visit the facilities.

Alison Blayney suggested the project would link into the Open Dialogue project.

Owen Brady suggested that the project could also include a reimaging project.

Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath raised a concern as to the audience for this training, and if it was Council workers or Councillors. Mr McGrath suggested that the target areas of concern should be areas that have flags and the training should go to those who work directly in communities. Councillor Walker also concurred that Mr McGrath had stated and suggested that the wording would be amended.

It was agreed that the wording of the proposal would be changed to include ‘ Key Community Members and/or Key Community Influencers.

9

This was proposed by Mr Gerry McGrath and seconded by Alison Blayney.

AGREED. The meeting paused for a five-minute break at 5pm. Kelvin Doherty (Youth Justice) gave his apologies at 5pm. Alderman Robert Gibson gave his apologies at 5pm.

Building Positive Relations

Personal Development and Training Programme Sandra Henderson (Social Partner for Community) commented that the projects so far were ‘top heavy’ on the younger age groups. Mrs Henderson suggested opening up the age limit from 16-30 to include the older generation who may have missed education opportunities. She specifically mentioned women who may have missed out on education due to childcare responsibilities.

The Head of Community and Culture agreed that this age group could be widened and suggested older peoples groups e.g. AGE North Down and Ards could engage in the project.

Councillor G Walker gave his apologies and left the meeting at 5.10pm.

Open Dialogue Programme The Head of Community and Culture and Mrs Hogg explained to the Members that this programme will specifically target areas in the Borough where there have been issues concerning open dialogue, including issues such as prejudice, hate, intimidation and sectarianism. There shall also be key work completed with bands, Orange Orders and other target groups.

Pete Wray (Social Partner for Younger People) gave his apologies at 5.20pm.

In response to a question posed by Owen Brady regarding the proposed three target groups, the Head of Community and Culture explained that the term was to be seen in the wider sense.

It was agreed that the wording of this proposal would be amended to ‘three groupings’ or ‘Borough wide.’

In a response to a query posed by Mrs Janette McNulty (Social Partner for the Trade Union) regarding whether the groups would be self-selected or targeted, the Head of Community and Culture explained that the work will be building on that of the Councils Good Relations Team and relationships that are already in place.

Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath raised a concern, stating that money should benefit everyone in the community.

10

Therese Hogg (Blu Zebra) commented that there is a need to incorporate the GAA, Irish language groups and Ulster Scots into the Open Dialogue Programme.

Sandra Henderson commented to the Members that the Ards Peninsula Village Partnership has representatives from all areas of the Peninsula and enjoys this broad partnership. She explained that the cross-community groups celebrate together events such as Burns Day and St Patricks. She explained that engagement does happen, and this programme could build and expand on the work already ongoing, but were money is dwindling.

Returning to the Emblems, and a query posed by a Member, the Head of Community and Culture asked the Members to refer to the 2nd last page of the tabled papers ‘Consortia Development & Peace Building Programme.

The Head of Community and Culture said that in relation to the Stage 2 application it was important to demonstrate that the PEACE IV project would build on the lessons learned through the PEACE III programme. The Officer also commented that the Post Project Evaluation, carried out after PEACE III highlighted the lessons learned e.g. on-going support for the PEACE Partnership in relation to Peace Building and Programme Management. This has been recognised in the Consortia Development Project. AGREED.

Connecting Communities Programme It was highlighted by a PEACE IV Officer that the connecting communities programme would be primarily focused on connecting those communities who haven’t been traditionally connected before. The aim will be to have a positive focus via cross council, cross community or cross boarder relations. The Head of Community and Culture explained that project would involve coastal communities researching their harbours / fishing villages/ immigration/migration.

In response to query posed by Alderman Carson regarding handing boxes. The Head of Community and Culture explained that there had been an error, and that it was in fact ‘handling boxes’ which were mobile display cases that could be taken around different communities.

Sandra Henderson commented that these ‘reminiscent boxes’ had been used by the Peninsula group previously and that these could fit in well with the women’s groups in the borough, reaching into the County Louth groups. She explained that a group, Louth and Ards Womens group already exist. She also commented that for cross boarder initiatives the budget would have to be increased.

Therese Hogg (Blu Zebra) stated that there would need to be inclusion with the Tourism strategy within AND.

11

Mrs Hogg also made mention that venues across the board would be targeted in order to break down barriers, and initiate shared spaces. The Church of Ireland was mentioned. NOTED.

Community Arts and Heritage Programme In a response to a query posed by Owen Brady (NI Housing Exec) regarding sufficient engagement to a community Orchestra, the Head of Community and Culture stated that the Councils Community Arts Officer has had input into the project and has extensive experience in similar projects. Therefore, the Head of Community and Culture stated that she would be confident that people in the community would be interested in a project of this kind.

Mr Brady also commented that the term ‘orchestra’ could spark class issues within the community as historically participation within an orchestra was reserved for the upper classes in society. There was discussion surrounding the wording of the project and a possible change from orchestra to community choir. These Hogg (Blu Zebra) commented that there could be scope to change turn the orchestra into a community arts programme. Sandra Henderson highlighted to the group that there is an active Peninsula Choir, who are currently planning events for the Christmas period. She indicated there was an upcoming meeting of the choir.

Alison Blayney commented that she had previously been considering the idea of a community choir or ladies choir.

Amanda Ashe commented that Camara Ireland could somehow link with this, to possibly include Clandeboye Festival.

In response to a query posed surrounding the Ethnic Minority Project, the Head of Community and Culture said the project could easily be extended to include our ethic minorities such as the Polish, Latvian and Korean communities.

Mrs Henderson suggested that the wording on the project be amended to include the words ‘intercultural’, and or ‘intergenerational’.

It was proposed by Alderman Angus Carson and seconded by Mrs Sandra Henderson that the proposed projects be approved and adopted.

AGREED.

9. PEACE IV PARTNERSHIP – PHA REPLACEMENT

The chairman, Alderman Keery advised Members that the Public Health Agency chose not to nominate a representative to the Ards and North Down PEACE IV Partnership.

12

Alderman Keery noted that it is the Officers recommendation to invite the Youth Service to nominate a representative.

The recommendation was proposed by Alderman W Irvine and seconded by Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath. AGREED.

10. DRAFT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT

The chairman advised that a draft Partnership Agreement had been presented at the last Partnership meeting, but that this had now been expanded to include Social Partners. It was proposed that the Members allow the PEACE IV Officers more time to develop the Draft Partnership Agreement, for consideration at the Partnership meeting in October 2016.

AGREED.

11. SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR 2016-2017

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Schedule of meetings for 2016-2017.

Wednesday 19 October from 6-8pm Thursday 24 November from 6-8 pm Thursday 19 January from 6-8pm Thursday 16 February from 6-8pm Thursday 23rd March from 6-8pm

An objection to Wednesday 19th October was made by Alderman Carson who informed the Members a Civic event had been scheduled during the times proposed.

It was proposed by the chairman that the dates would then be reissued by the PEACE IV Officers for further consideration. AGREED. 12. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

Alderman Angus Carson advised the Members that he is representative on the Programme Monitoring Committee and was due to attend a meeting that morning to consider the implications of the Brexit vote. Alderman Carson stated that he will pass information along to the Director or Head of Community and Culture.

In response to a query by Janette McNulty (Social Partner for the Trade Union) regarding Stage one application points, the Head of Community and Culture confirmed that the original Stage one application was withdrawn following a request from SEUPB. The application was to be resubmitted in August along with fifteen points of clarification. Confirmation on the outcome of the stage 1 application reminded pending.

13

The Head of Community and Culture advised the Members that the Stage one application had a very restricted character count, so it was difficult to present sufficient information in relation to some of the questions. For Stage two the character count has been increased.

Several members acknowledged the work of PEACE IV officers in preparation for the Stage 2 submission.

NOTED.

13. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

Members were advised the next meeting date had been set for Wednesday 19th October, but in light of a Civic Event on that date the meeting would be amended and an email with a revised date would be issued as soon as possible.

NOTED.

14. TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 6pm NOTED.

14

ARDS and NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL PEACE IV PARTNERSHIP MONDAY 19th SEPTEMBER 2016

A meeting of the Ards and North Down Borough Council PEACE IV Partnership was held in the boardroom of Londonderry Park, Newtownards at 3.00 pm on the above date.

Present:

In the Chair: Councillor Eddie Thompson

Elected Members: Alderman Angus Carson Alderman Robert Gibson Alderman Bill Keery

Statutory Agencies Owen Brady – NI Housing Executive Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath – PSNI, Ards and North Down Area Commander Kelvin Doherty – Youth Justice Agency Stephen Dallas – Youth Service

Social Partners Sheila Bailie – Voluntary Sector Dorothy Beattie – Older Peoples Sector Pete Wray – Younger Peoples Sector Katy Radford – BME Sector Alison Blayney – Womens Groups Janette McNulty – Trade Unions Leigh Nelson- Business Sector

Officers in Attendance

Mrs J Nixey (Head of Community and Culture) Mrs N Dorrian (External Funding Programme Manager) Mrs G McCready (PEACE IV Officer) Miss L Roulston (Grants Administrator) Miss L McCamley (Administrative Officer)

Therese Hogg – Blu Zebra

1

1. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR

The PEACE IV Officer welcomed and introduced everyone to the second meeting of Ards and North Down Borough Council PEACE IV Partnership and advised that the first item of the agenda was to nominate a chair for the meeting.

It was proposed by Alderman Bill Keery and seconded by Alderman Angus Carson that Councillor Eddie Thompson Chair the meeting.

AGREED. 2. APOLOGIES

Apologies for inability to attend were received from Alderman Alan McDowell, Alderman Wesley Irvine, Ralston Perera, Sandra Henderson, Graeme Bannister, Linda Bradshaw and Donna Mackey. Apologies for lateness had been received from Alison Blayney.

The Chairman asked each member in turn to introduce themselves to the meeting.

Alderman Robert Gibson entered the meeting 15.05 and made his apologies for late arrival. Owen Brady arrived at 15.06.

NOTED.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chair (Cllr Thompson) asked Members to declare any potential conflicts of interest in respect of any items on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest declared.

NOTED.

4. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON WEDNESDAY 7TH SEPTEMBER 2016

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Copy of the minutes of PEACE IV Partnership Meeting held on 7th September 2016.

RECOMMENDED that the Partnership agree the minutes of the meeting held on September 7th.

Matters Arising:

Shelia Bailie requested an amendment, that she had to leave early at the previous meeting. She asked that it be noted that she left at 4.50pm on the 7th. 2

Janette McNulty suggested the minutes should include Members names, and sector at the beginning but not prefixes the whole way through the document.

Gerry McGrath requested an amendment on page 9. He wished it to be clarified that there was an inaccuracy regarding the training of the 16th Irish Division at the proposed Whitespots Heritage site.

The Chair (Cllr Thompson), informed the members that Item 11 Schedule of Meetings for 2016-2017 – shall be dealt with under item 6 of today’s agenda.

RESOLVED, on the proposal of Bill Keery, seconded by Robert Gibson that the minutes are agreed.

AGREED.

5. STRATEGIC ON DRAFT PEACE IV PROJECT PROPOSALS

The Chair (Cllr Thompson) advised Members that following the previous Partnership meeting on 7th September and discussions with SEUPB, some amendments had been made to the proposed projects.

The PEACE IV Officer asked Members to go through the projects individually to allow for discussions on each project.

CYP 1 Capacity Building and Youth Leadership Programme The PEACE IV Officer advised that a number of amendments had been made to the CYP1 projects following advice from Members during the previous meeting.

The Officer advised that the age range had been amended and that Officers had taken on board comments regarding staffing. The Officer advised that with these changes to the project, the budget had increased from £187,970 to £250,970.00. The Officer explained to Members that is was envisioned projects 1 (Developing the Voice) and 2 (Leadership and Mentoring) shall be taken to tender jointly but project 3 (Youth Pod Shelters) will be fulfilled by Council.

In a query posed by Jeanette McNulty regarding powering music in the shelter pods, Mrs Dorrian said that the pods which had been researched for the Borough had solar powered lighting units and a hand powered crank handle which generated energy. She advised that some designs can also be ‘peddled like a bicycle’. She described the shelters to the Members, explaining their half-moon shape, similar to that of a bus shelter, but curved.

Jeanette McNulty said that she had been reassured by Officers regarding noise levels.

3

Owen Brady posed a question regarding the location and position of the pods. He asked Officers if there would be a Pod in Londonderry Park, and whether the four pods for the borough would be divided to two for Ards and two for North Down. He commented that consulting on locations would be an issue and that there should be a contingency in place if the Partnership cannot come up with four agreed places to put them that won’t receive negative feedback from the community.

Mrs Nixey advised that the pods would be placed on Council land, near a community centre.

Pete Wray commented that his main concern regarding the pods was that the outline contained no youth workers to oversee. He suggested a possible link between the mentorship program and the pods, so there would be ownership in place.

Gerry McGrath advised the Members that there was one known shelter pod in Northern Ireland which was located inside a school, in Omagh. He said that any pods installed in the area need to be positioned in a controlled environment, such as in connection with a Muga pitch. Mr McGrath stated that ‘Nowhere in NI has the PSNI endorsed the Pods.’

Stephen Dallas stated he had concerns over time limits and staffing. He raised concerns regarding the EA staff budget in the Borough over next two years. He advised that the EA would be keen to link in with this project but this would be dependent on the budget released in March 17.

Dorothy Beattie raised a concern regarding the wording ‘Cohesive society’ in the project outline which suggests that the project would include all age groups. Mrs Nixey advised the members that the pods would accommodate ages up to 24.

Alderman Gibson asserted that someone needs to take ownership- or they would be abused and used. He urged it would be important to get buy in from statutory bodies.

Janette McNulty commented that if the pods were designed to provide a distraction for young people who would normally be anti-social- it would become a challenge for them. She suggested that ‘it does look vandal proof- but it will become a hub- it’s going to be a distraction and that the key focus now should be about managing the pods and having people (adults) there to run them.

In response to a query posed by Alderman Bill Keery as to whether locations such as Muga pitches or Londonderry Park will be locked at night. Gerry McGrath confirmed that they are locked. Alderman Kerry said that if the secure places would be locked the pods needed to be location in an open space where they will be seen by community members.

Shelia Bailie stated that she had made an assumption that the employment of a senior youth worker for CYP1 would cover the pods. She commented that ‘they need safe guarding, could be potentially very risky and have implications for the body that takes 4

responsibility.’ She highlighted that she felt there was still work to be done. She added that ‘we don’t want them to be vandalised’ and ‘young people need to be safe guarded and protected.’

Therese Hogg suggested there could be a partnership with young people who would help design a project around the pod placed in their area.

Mrs Nixey explained to members that as stated during the previous meeting, the officers have to submit a robust application, with actual costs or with historical costs. She explained that the youth pod shelter project was designed with the intention to be delivered by council in connection with PSNI, plus Community Wardens and Community Development Officers. She pointed out that the projects were not stand- alone, and that they would all link up together and that there had been thorough financial research taken place by Officers to determine costs. She concluded by saying she had no doubt the pods would be managed in conjunction with who-ever is delivering the tender on project 1 and 2.

Pete Wray highlighted concerns regarding accountability but added that they would work well with projects 1 and 2 and whoever was awarded the tender for projects.

Alderman Angus Carson commented that he supported the project whole heartily. He added that he valued Members suggestions, and that he was supportive of project which would give young people somewhere to go. He added that he felt there was still work to do but thought they were a great idea.

The Chair, (Cllr Thompson) commented that there is known anti-social behaviour in this area, but the pods have worked in other areas, outside NI, and so he was in favour of going ahead at this stage.

Stephen Dallas advised members that the EA did have a pod that is in a secure location and used in conjunction with various programmes.

Alderman Robert Gibson said that although he was not speaking against the pods, he felt rules and responsibility was needed. He asked Officers if 12-24 year olds would be in the pod together. He also queried that in the case of an accident, who would take accountability? He also said that it was important to know the difficulties before embarking on the project and the Partnership should be confident that the project would not be a disaster.

Alderman Bill Keery commented that he agreed with Alderman Gibson regarding age. Alderman Keery said that he has concerned over very young teenagers mixing with older ones who would be into different things. He raised concerns over bulling and added that an age range of 16-25 would work better.

5

Janette McNulty raised a consider over Alderman Bill Keery’s comment regarding age. She asked how the age could be controlled- and that if it was in a public space, there would be no stopping young children from playing on / around it.

The Chair (Cllr Thompson) asked if the Officers could take these comments and suggestions away and look at the details of the project again, especially in regard to locations.

Mrs Dorrian explained to Members that each pod would be placed on council land and would be controlled by council and therefore Council would hold responsibility.

In response to a query posed by Gerry McGrath regarding points of clarity on the timescale of the project and the consultation period. Mrs Nixey advised that the budget had to be spent by August 2018 and work would begin in January 2017.

There were no further comments and it was proposed by Alderman Angus Carson and seconded by Alderman Bill Keery that this project be adopted.

AGREED.

CYP 2 EARLY INTERVENTION PROGRAMME

The PEACE IV Officer advised Members that following one comment made at the previous meeting in relation to the parenting programme, this project had now been amended.

There were no further comments and it was proposed by Alderman Robert Gibson and seconded by Owen Brady that this project be adopted.

AGREED.

CYP 3 SPORTS AND RECREATION PROGRAMME

The PEACE IV Officer advised Members that this project had been budgeted at over the 160k threshold but the intention was to spilt the project into two areas- Community and Pre School / Primary school. The Officer pointed out that there would be connections with Louth County Council during this project and there would be further opportunities to make the project both cross-broader and cross-community.

There were no further comments and it was proposed by Sheila Baillie and seconded by Pete Wray that this project be adopted.

AGREED.

6

SSS1 SHARED SPACES PROGRAMME

The PEACE IV Officer advised Members that the previously proposed project, which incorporated a large portion of the overall budget into the development of a heritage site would now not be included following discussions with SEUPB, the council has come together to look at other areas that offered shared space in the Borough.

The Officer also referred to the previously proposed flags and emblems project and advised Members that Officers have costed up a budget for this within the re-imaging project and this will be developing on the PEACE 111 re-imaging project.

Members expressed several concerns and questions with the project including:

 Addressing flags and emblems with PEACE IV funding when other government bodies do not fund this  Inconsistencies with budget sums, possible missing costs- running costs not included in Comber budget.  Only three areas targeted – could be more borough wide  Insufficient older people needs met  Park runs not included in proposal  After the PEACE IV programme ends who will pick up the costs of maintaining the long term projects (i.e. gardens)  Portavogie is not the right place to develop at the minute.  Why have these areas been targeted?  Who will inspire people to use these new facilities.  Concerns over allotments already established in Borough, and local allotment land owners.  The perception that the funding is going to majority PUL communities.  Issues that people will not go to other villages to use services, they want the same services / facilities in their village.  Previous allotment legal problems.  Could the budget be divided further to include other villages and widen scope? Could money be taken from allotments and put somewhere else?  Do the Officers have any shovel-ready projects that could go ahead, minimizing consultation periods.  Members feel frustrate at lack of details provided.

In response to the query’s raised, the Peace Officer stated that decisions needed to made on these proposals before the meeting could terminate. The stage 2 application deadline was this week. The budgets had been complied according to historical data and advice from other Council departments who worked in these areas. The Rural Development team were looking at similar types of programmes across the Borough.

7

Therese Hogg said that the idea was to try to create connection between villages, and to aim for the concept of consensual space not just shared space and welcoming people to travel into spaces and places.

It was proposed by Alderman Bill Keery and seconded by Alderman Robert Gibson that this project be adopted. AGREED.

BPR 1 PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAMME

The PEACE IV Officer advised Members that following the previous meeting the age group 16-30 had been widened. The Officer said that this project was not an employability project but aims to work on building self-confidence and self-esteem within the Borough.

In response to a query posed by Jeanette McNulty regarding the selection of participants in the project, Mrs Nixey explained that selection would be through community networks and community organisations. Mrs Nixey explained that there had been a demonstrated need for this type of project in the Borough.

Leigh Nelson suggested opening up the project to include language classes.

Therese Hogg advised the Members that a dropout rate has been included in the development of all the PEACE IV programmes proposals.

In response to a query posed by Gerry McGrath, Mrs Nixey explained that she envisioned a tender or more likely a consortia of tenders with knowledge of the local area would tender for this project.

It was proposed by Alderman Bill Keery and seconded by Owen Brady that this project be adopted. AGREED.

BPR 2 OPEN DIALOGUE PROGRAMME

The PEACE IV Officer advised Members that this project would build on the work currently being carried out by the Councils Good Relations team.

It was proposed by Leigh Nelson and seconded by Alderman Angus Carson that this project be adopted.

AGREED.

BPR 3 CONNECTING COMMUNITIES PROGRAMME

8

The PEACE IV Officer advised Members that amendments to the previously proposed program included a budget increase to accommodate hospitality costs as highlighted by a Member at the previous meeting.

There were no further comments and it was proposed by Alison Blayney and seconded by Alderman Robert Gibson that this project be adopted.

AGREED.

BPR 4 CONSORTIA DEVELOPMENT AND PEACE BUILDING PROGRAMME

There were no comments and it was proposed by Alderman Bill Keery and seconded by Alderman Robert Gibson that this project be adopted. AGREED

BPR 5 COMMUNITY ARTS AND HERITAGE PROGRAMME

The PEACE IV Officer advised Members that the project proposal had been expanding since the last meeting. The Officer explained that work of this kind had been completed during the PEACE III programme and it had been very popular.

Alderman Robert Gibson suggested the project could be broader.

Katy Radford raised a concern that other minority communities should be included. She also mentioned that there was a huge story surrounding Millisle, in relation to WW11 (across the Borough) and the Jewish population.

There were no further comments and it was proposed by Jeanette McNulty and seconded by Leigh Nelson that this project be adopted.

AGREED. Alderman Angus Carson left the meeting at this stage - 4.40pm.

6. REPORT ON DATES OF FUTURE MEETINGS

The Chair (Cllr Eddie Thompson) advised Members that following the previous meeting a schedule of meetings had been circulated for Members information and that since the last meeting a request to amend the timetable had been received.

An Officer presented a list of proposed dates and times. After a discussion it was it was agreed that the meetings would begin at 6.30pm.

AGREED. 9

7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS TABLED: 7(a) Correspondence from SEUPB to Chief Executive dated 15th September. The Officer advised Members that item 7 (a) documented the feedback form the SEUPB stage one application. This included 32 points of clarification which SEUPB has requested.

7(b) Correspondence from DOF (Department of Finance) dated 16th September

7(c) Date of Next meeting

The Chair (Cllr Eddie Thomson) advised Members that the date of the next meeting had been set for:

20th October 6.30pm

Alison Blayney asked Officers to note her apologies in advance of the next meeting.

8. TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 16.56pm.

NOTED.

10

ARDS and NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL PEACE IV PARTNERSHIP Thursday 20th October 2016

A meeting of the Ards and North Down Borough Council PEACE IV Partnership was held in the boardroom of Londonderry Park, Newtownards at 6.30pm on the above date.

Present:

In the Chair: Councillor Eddie Thompson

Elected Members: Alderman Angus Carson Alderman Robert Gibson Alderman Bill Keery Alderman Wesley Irvine Councillor Alan Leslie

Statutory Agencies Owen Brady – NI Housing Executive Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath – PSNI, Ards and North Down Area Commander Ralston Perera- South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust Kelvin Doherty – Youth Justice Agency

Social Partners Shelia Bailie- Voluntary Sector Sandra Henderson- Community Sector Leigh Nelson- Business Sector

Officers in Attendance

Mrs G McCready (PEACE IV Officer) Mrs Debbie McKinney (Community Development Manager) Mrs Linda Bradshaw (PEACE IV Finance Officer) Miss L McCamley (Administrative Officer)

1

1. APOLOGIES

Apologies for inability to attend were received from Councillor Richard Smart, Dorothy Beattie (Social Partner for Older People), Pete Wray (Social Partner for Younger People), Katy Radford (Social Partner for BME), Alison Blayney(Social Partner for Womens group) Janette McNulty (Social Partner for Trade Unions), Stephen Dallas (Education Authority), Ray Gilbert (Education Authority),Graeme Bannister (Director of Community and Well Being ANDBC), Jan Nixey (Head of Community and Culture ANDBC), Nikki Dorrian (Externally Funded Programme Manager and Good Relations Officer ANDBC).

NOTED.

2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chair (Cllr Thompson) asked Members to declare any potential conflicts of interest in respect of any items on the agenda.

There were no declarations of interest declared.

NOTED. 3. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR

The PEACE IV Officer welcomed and introduced everyone to the meeting of Ards and North Down Borough Council PEACE IV Partnership. The Officer advised that a Chair was required to be appointed to chair the meeting.

It was proposed by Alderman Keery and seconded by Alderman Irvine that Councillor Eddie Thompson Chair the meeting.

AGREED.

4. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON MONDAY 19TH SEPTEMBER 2016

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Copy of the minutes of PEACE IV Partnership Meeting held on 19th September 2016

RECOMMENDED that the Partnership agree the minutes of the meeting held on 19TH September 2016.

There were no matters arising.

It was proposed by Alderman Keery and seconded by Alderman Gibson that the minutes be adopted. 2

AGREED.

5. REPORT ON STAGE 2 APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO SEUPB.

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Report from PEACE IV Officer which detailed the various submissions made to SEUPB and the requests for further information and points of clarification. PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED documents included: (a) Project Proposals submitted (b) Correspondence from SEUPB dated 27th September confirming receipt of application (c) Email correspondence dated 4 October requesting points of clarification (d) Responses to Points of Clarification (e) Value for Money (VFM) Queries (f) Further Points of Clarification (g) Further VFM Queries

The PEACE IV Officer updated Members as to a review meeting held with SEUPB on Tuesday 18th October in Omagh. The update included additional requirements that Officers were required to make to enable to application to be forwarded to the SEUPB Steering Committee with a positive recommendation in terms of proposed projects. Members were also advised that SEUPB Officials had confirmed Partnership members would be unable to tender to deliver projects due to conflicts of interest or perceived conflict of interest.

The Officer confirmed that an email was circulated on Tuesday 18th October to all Members advising of the outcome of this meeting and the issue of conflict of interest. Following this a number of Partnership Members had withdrawn from the partnership. These Members included Dorothy Beattie (Social Partner for Older People), Pete Wray (Social Partner for Younger People), Katy Radford (Social Partner for BME), Stephen Dallas (Education Authority) and Ray Gilbert (Education Authority).

Members were advised that a reserve list of social partners was created following the recruitment process for Social Partners in August 2016 and reserve candidates were available for each category except young people.

In response to a query posed by Alderman Carson regarding Partners now being excluded from applying for tender, Community Development Manager said that there had been similar issues during PEACE III and Officers would seek further written clarification on the issue.

Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath said he would like clarification from Officers as to the project delivery method and the word ‘preferred’ when discussing Tender advice by SEUPB.

3

The PEACE IV Finance Officer said that tendered projects often include a profit element for the company who appointed. Throughout the entire application process SEUPB had repeatedly stated that tendering of projects would be the preferred delivery method and in order to produce the best outcome for the application, project delivery was steered towards tendering.

Cllr Leslie highlighted the need for further clarification on conflict of interest with regards to project delivery for Elected Members who were Directors or Board Members for local organisations who may apply for tender to deliver projects.

It was then proposed by Alderman Gibson and seconded by Alderman Keery that written clarification on the matter be sought from SEUPB as soon as possible.

Leigh Nelson arrived at 18.38.

AGREED.

6. UPDATE ON PEACE IV PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Copy of Report from PEACE IV Officer confirming that Members were advised at the previous meeting that a full partnership agreement would be presented to the October meeting for discussion and agreement. It was essential that the partnership had robust governance arrangements in place and as such the partnership agreement required legal consideration. However due to the volume of work associated with the submission of the PEACE IV Stage 2 application and the ongoing responses to SEUPB on the points of clarification, there had been a delay in obtaining a legal opinion on the partnership agreement.

The PEACE IV Officer advised Members that a Draft Partnership Agreement draft was due to be sent for legal opinion imminently, however, now due to issues discussed in Agenda Item 5 the Agreement may be subject to change. She advised that this item would be brought back to a future meeting.

Alderman Angus Carson commented that any new social partners appointed would need to be given clarification on conflict of interest and tendering for programmes.

NOTED.

7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

The Chair asked Members for any other business to be tabled. None was tabled.

Shelia Bailie (Social Partner for Community) arrived at 7pm.

4

NEXT MEETING:

The Chair (Cllr Thomson) advised Members that the date of the next meeting had been set for:

Thursday 24th November at 6.30pm

NOTED.

8. TERMINATION OF MEETING

The meeting terminated at 7.05pm.

NOTED.

5

ARDS and NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL PEACE IV PARTNERSHIP Monday 12th December 2016

A meeting of the Ards and North Down Borough Council PEACE IV Partnership was held in the boardroom of Signal Centre of Business Excellence at 3.30pm on the above date.

Present:

In the Chair: Councillor Eddie Thompson

Elected Members: Alderman Angus Carson Alderman Robert Gibson Alderman Wesley Irvine Alderman Bill Keery Councillor Alan Leslie Councillor Richard Smart

Statutory Agencies Philip O’Flaherty – NI Housing Executive Ralston Perera- South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust Kieran McKenna- South Eastern Regional College

Social Partners Pete Wray – Young People Dorothy Beattie - Older people Katy Radford – BME

Officers in Attendance Mrs Jan Nixey (Head of Community and Culture) Mrs Nicola Dorrian (External Funding Manager) Mrs G McCready (PEACE IV Officer) Mrs Donna Mackay (Good Relations Officer) Mrs Linda Bradshaw (PEACE IV Finance Officer) Miss L McCamley (Administrative Officer)

1

1. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR

The PEACE IV Officer welcomed and introduced everyone to the meeting of Ards and North Down Borough Council PEACE IV Partnership. The officer advised that a Chair was required to be appointed to Chair the meeting.

It was proposed by Alderman Irvine and seconded by Alderman Gibson that Councillor Eddie Thompson Chair the meeting.

AGREED.

2. APOLOGIES

Apologies for inability to attend were received from Alderman Alan McDowell, Councillor Gavin Walker, Councillor Bill Keery, Ray Gilbert (Education Authority), Stephen Dallas (EA Youth Service), Kelvin Doherty (Youth Justice Agency), Sandra Henderson (Community Sector), Alison Blayney (Women’s groups), Leigh Nelson (Business Community), Janette McNulty (Union Rep), Sheila Bailie (Voluntary Sector) and Graeme Bannister (Director of Community and Wellbeing). Apologies for expected lateness were received from Gerry McGrath (PSNI, Ards and North Down Area Commander).

The Chair advised Members that Sheila’s daughter, Naomi, was critically ill in hospital with meningitis. Members expressed their concern and requested that their best wishes be conveyed to Shelia and her family. The Chair also welcomed Jan Nixey back to the Partnership after a period of ill health.

NOTED.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chair invited the Head of Community and Culture to make a statement with regard to declarations of interest.

The Head of Community and Culture advised Members that following a meeting between Council officers and SEUPB on 18th October, the Partnership was advised that member organisations would not be able to apply to deliver programmes on a tender basis, due to conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest. She added that the matter had been discussed at the Partnership meeting on 20th October 2016 and Members agreed that written clarification should be sought from SEUPB. Following the meeting a number of organisations indicated that they would resign from the Partnership. The Head of Community & Culture then asked those Members to 2

reconsider their resignation in light of recent legal advice which was reported under Item 6. She then said that as discussions surrounding specific projects or delivery partners were not on the agenda today, she would see no rise for Conflict of Interest declarations at present.

Katy Radford wished it to be noted that she would be declaring an interest should one arise.

NOTED.

4. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY 20TH OCTOBER 2016

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Copy of minutes of PEACE IV Partnership Meeting held on 20th October 2016.

RECOMMENDED that the Partnership agree the minutes of the meeting held on 20th October.

There were no matters arising.

It was proposed by Alderman Irvine and seconded by Alderman Gibson that the minutes be adopted. AGREED.

5. CORRESPONDENCE FROM SEUPB

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: a. Email (27 October 2016) from Brenda Hegarty, Programme Manager, Joint Secretariat, SEUPB

An email regarding tender delivery and conflict of interest, which outlined various delivery options and that in instances in a conflict of interest, 100% would be ineligible. All of which would be confirmed in a Letter of Offer. b. Letter (24 November 2016) to Mr Stephen Reid re Stage 2 Application

A letter advising that the stage two application had been approved for funding subject to conditions. It advised that a Letter of Offer would be issued by Friday 2 December 2016. The letter also asked Council to refrain from making any public statements regarding the funding at this time.

3

c. Memo (5 December 2016) from John Greer, Head of Joint Technical Secretariat, SEUPB

A memo advising on the delivery of PEACE IV projects. The letter outlined guidance stating “members of the partnership can deliver elements of the PEACE IV Programme as delivery partners on a real costs basis. However, if the Lead Partner opts for tender delivery, the relative flexibility of the Programme rules would be replaced by the more ridged public procurement regulations, including the issue of managing potential conflicts of interest who SEUPB would govern partner-led and tender delivery.

d. Email (6 December 2016) to Mr Stephen Reid re PEACE IV Draft Letter of Offer

An email advising Council that the draft Letter of Offer had been attached and to advise of a meeting to discuss the start and end date of the project. The email also said that the next stage after the meeting would be to formally sign the finalised Letter of Offer, returning the formal acceptance to SEUPB.

Alderman Gibson proposed the documents be adopted into the Partnership. Alderman Irvine seconded this motion.

AGREED.

6. REPORT ON PEACE IV PROGRAMME DELIVERY

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: REPORT ON PROGRAMME DELIVERY AND DELIVERY APPROACH SUMMARY (ANNEX 1)

The Chair invited the Head of Community and Culture to address the Members regarding Item 6; Report and Annex 1.

From the correspondence detailed under Item 5 on the agenda, Members were advised that ANDBC’s PEACE IV second stage application was submitted by the closing date of 23 September 2016. The Managing Authority, SEUPB and the Executive Office then requested a considerable amount of additional information between the submission date and the assessment date of 22 November 2016. A similar volume of additional information was required from all lead Councils.

The Chief Executive of Ards and North Down was formally notified by SEUPB on 24 November 2016 that the PEACE IV second stage application was successful. A grant of £3,310,694.64 had been awarded to the Council to be spent by March 2019. The Council and the PEACE IV Partnership have been requested not to make any public statements about this award at this time.

4

When developing the local PEACE IV Action Plan the Council and PEACE IV Partnership adhered to the EU Programme Guidance which allowed for three types of project delivery: 1. Small Grants 2. Partner Delivery (on an actual cost basis) 3. Tender Based on verbal Guidance from SEUPB’s Financial Controller at a managers training session on 17 June 2016 and lessons learned from PEACE III, the Partnership agreed to adopt the tender delivery approach as the basis to develop and deliver the local PEACE IV Action Plan. Following a review meeting with SEUPB on 18 October 2016, Members were advised by email that their organisations were unable to tender for the delivery of local PEACE IV projects, due to conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest. The matter was discussed at the last meeting of the PEACE IV Partnership on 20 October 2016 and Members agreed that written clarification should be sought on the matter. The management of conflicts of interest was also an issue for other lead Councils and PEACE IV Partnerships and SEUPB issued further guidance on 5 December 2016 (Item 5, memo from John Greer). The draft letter of offer, issued by SEUPB to Ards and North Down Borough Council (ANDBC), dated 7 December 2016 stated: “It is recommended that a reflection of the proposed delivery approach – i.e. all activity will be tender delivery – should be completed by Ards and North Down Borough Council and determine if a more balanced delivery model should be proposed including partner delivery.” “The Partnership should be aware that Members of the Partnership can deliver elements of the PEACE IV Programme as delivery partners on a “real cost” basis. If the Lead Partner opts for tender delivery, the relative flexibility of the programme rules will be replaced by the more rigid public procurement regulations, including the issue of managing potential conflicts of interest. If the Partners wish to proceed with a public procurement process, which may include tender bids from Partner organisations or other associated interests, the SEUPB would wish to be advised and consider the management arrangements for potential conflicts of interest.” Officers had since met with SEUPB on Wednesday 7 December 2016 to review the conditions of the draft letter of offer and had sought legal advice on delivery mechanisms and the management of conflicts of interest in general. As a result of this advice it was now recommended that consideration was given to delivering the PEACE IV Plan through a mixture of tender and partner delivery (on a

5

real cost basis) and the management of conflicts of interest was clearly detailed in the PEACE IV Partnership Agreement and legal advice sought on the Agreement. The table attached at Annex 1 detailed all of the projects which have been successful. Members were advised that it was previously agreed that as the Lead Partner ANDBC would deliver a number of the initiatives, these were detailed in Annex 1. It was recommended that Members consider the remaining projects and advise which projects their organisation could deliver on a “real cost” basis. Where more than one organisation could deliver a project, a consortium approach was acceptable, subject to the appointment of a lead consortium partner. Delivery partners would be required to respond to a brief detailing how the project would be delivered, including milestones, outcomes, impacts and a full detailed budget breakdown etc and this information will be reviewed by officers to ensure the project could be delivered on a real cost basis, in line with programme rules. The delivery of remaining projects would be subject to tender delivery. Please note that due to potential conflicts of interest, tender submissions from partner organisations would not be considered, due to rigid public procurement rules and EU Programme Rules. The Lead Partner was required to respond to SEUPB’s conditions of grant, including pre-commencement conditions and project implementation conditions by 14 February 2017. Therefore, it was necessary that all partner delivery projects were identified by 22 December 2016, to enable the relevant tender documentation to be prepared. It was recommended that the PEACE IV Partnership approves: 1. The delivery of the PEACE IV Plan through a mixture of tender and partner Delivery (on a real cost basis) 2. All partner delivery projects should be identified by 22 December 2016 and the delivery of the remaining projects will be subject to tender 3. The management of conflicts of interest will be detailed on the PEACE IV Partnership Agreement, which would be subject to legal advice.

The Head of Community and Culture advised that all of the projects had been approved with the except of the consortium delivery project, which had been designed to provide Partnership training to Members. SEUPB had advised Officers that they will be hosting partnership training.

SEUPB had stated that a regional project was due to be submitted from the Education Authority. If there was any duplication with the Partnerships Early Years Project projects the project would have to be reconsidered.

SEUPB reported that the Steering Committee could not understand the value of the proposed Youth Shelters. It was suggested by SEUPB to develop Pods with the aim of 6

them being used as multifunctional space- similar to those currently located at Bangor Sea Front. Officers would investigate the suggestion and bring further information back to the Partnership.

Although it was originally recommended by SEUPB to follow the route of tender during the development process, more recent guidance had given scope for Partner Delivery. In the Letter of Offer, SEUPB have asked the lead partner to reconsider the delivery approaches and consider a mix of partner delivery and tender delivery. The officer stated that if partners wished to deliver some projects then a process would have to be put in place to ensure partners had good governance and practices in place, along with the ability to deliver the project successfully and within the timescale.

It was noted that according to EU delivery project delivery guidelines there could be no profit for organisations delivering projects. Projects would be delivered on a ‘real cost basis’ and Officers would be financially verifying and monitoring the project robustly.

The Head of Community and Culture advised that ANDBC was required to respond to SEUPB’s conditions of grant, including commencement conditions and project implementation conditions by 14th February 2017. She then advised that those Members who were considering delivering projects via Partner Delivery should express an interest by 22nd December 2016.

It was noted that the Partnership Agreement would be updated to reflect how conflict of interest issues would be manged, subject to agreement on delivery approaches.

Alderman Gibson welcomed the new information but asked for clarification on profit. He asked that if a current Partner, who couldn’t make a profit via Partner delivery, resigned and placed a bid to tender the project, which could make a profit, how would that be managed?

The Head of Community and Culture said that as Partners had been involved in the planning of project proposals and therefore had been privy to additional information this would result in a conflict of interest. Therefore, they would be unsuccessful in a tender bid.

In response to an additional query by Partners on Conflicts of Interest issues, the officer advised that only those partners around the table would be eligible for Partner delivery.

In response to a query posed by a Member regarding staffing and additional resources which would be required for Partner delivery, the Head of Community and Culture advised that there was a limit for the Partnership’s staffing and administration budget, however additional staff would be sourced if required.

Pete Wray enquired as to what information will be available prior to the 22nd of December 2016. He added that he would be eager to know salary percentages allocated for each project. It was noted that at present only expressions of interest to 7

deliver a project would be taken by 22nd December, after which discussions regarding the specifics of the project could take place and advice would be sought on specific queries from SEUPB.

In response to a query posed by Alderman Irvine regarding a linkage between Council led projects and Partner led projects, the Head of Community and Culture said she expected there would be linkages across all projects.

It was proposed by Alderman Gibson and seconded by Alderman Keery that the recommendations be agreed.

AGREED.

7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

The Chair invited the Head of Community and Culture to provide a verbal update in regard to proposed sub groups.

The Head of Community and Culture advised Members that consideration was being given to sub-groups and it was likely that two groups would be proposed.

(1) a finance and monitoring sub group, established for the period of the programme.

(2) a working group to oversee the appointment of delivery partners with a short term remit.

She advised that a report will be brought to the next meeting for consideration

NOTED.

8. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

The Chair advised Members that the date of the next meeting had been set for Thursday 19th January at 6.30pm in Londonderry Park.

Alderman Keery gave his apologies for lateness, expressing a concern that confusion had been caused by a location change.

The meeting concluded at 6.19PM.

NOTED. 8

ARDS and NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL PEACE IV PARTNERSHIP Thursday 19th January 2017

A meeting of the Ards and North Down Borough Council PEACE IV Partnership was held in Londonderry Park, Newtownards at 6.30pm on the above date.

Present: In the Chair: Councillor Eddie Thompson

Elected Members: Alderman Angus Carson Alderman Robert Gibson Alderman Wesley Irvine Alderman Bill Keery Councillor Richard Smart Councillor Gavin Walker

Statutory Agencies Owen Brady- NI Housing Executive Ralston Perera- South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust Stephen Dallas- Education Authority Youth Service Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath- Police Service of NI.

Social Partners Pete Wray – Young People Dorothy Beattie - Older people Alison Blayney- Womens Groups Janette McNulty- Trade Union Sandra Henderson-Community Shelia Bailie- Voluntary

Officers in Attendance Mr Graeme Bannister (Director of Community and Wellbeing) Mrs Jan Nixey (Head of Community and Culture) Mrs Nicola Dorrian (External Funding Manager) Mrs Gillian McCready (PEACE IV Officer) Mrs Linda Bradshaw (PEACE IV Finance Officer) Miss Laura McCamley (Administrative Officer)

1

1. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR

The PEACE IV Officer welcomed everyone to the meeting. The Officer advised that a Chair was required to be appointed to Chair the meeting.

It was proposed by Alderman Robert Gibson, seconded by Alderman Wesley Irvine that Councillor Eddie Thompson Chair the meeting.

There being no further nominations, Councillor Thompson took the Chair for the meeting.

AGREED.

2. APOLOGIES

Apologies for inability to attend were received from Alderman Alan McDowell, Katy Radford (BME), Leigh Nelson (Business Sector). Apologies for expected lateness were received from Shelia Bailie (Voluntary Sector) and Nicola Dorrian (ANDBC). NOTED.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chair invited any declarations of interest foreseen on the agenda to be raised at this point. He also advised that declarations of interest could also be raised throughout the meeting.

The Chair advised Members that Shelia Bailie, who had given an apology of expected lateness, would like it to be noted for the record that she has a potential conflict of Interest with Item 5. Shelia Bailie registered this conflict of interest via a telephone call with a PEACE IV Officer that afternoon. During this phone call, she stating that she was a member of partnership working group, feeding into the delivery of the Shared Spaces and Services programme. NOTED.

4. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON MONDAY 12TH DECEMBER 2016 5. PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Copy of minutes of PEACE IV Partnership Meeting held on 12th December 2016 were tabled.

The Chair advised that the termination of the meeting should read 5.19pm and not 6.19 pm.

RECOMMENDED that the Partnership agree the minutes of the meeting held on 12th December.

It was proposed by Alderman Wesley Irvine and seconded by Councillor Richard Smart

2

that the minutes be adopted. AGREED.

6. REPORT ON PEACE IV PROGRAMME

TABLED: Report on PEACE IV Programme Delivery Options

A report by the Head of Community and Culture advising on the delivery options available for the PEACE IV Partnership was tabled. The report stated that at the previous Partnership meeting, Members had discussed and agreed to explore tender and partner lead projects. Meetings took place with Members, week commencing 9th January 2016 with potential delivery partners to discuss the implications associated with the partner approach. These implications included, but were not limited to; the project budget being re-costed leading to a shorter delivery timeframe; the project completed on a real cost basis with no profit element and 100% verification; and a rigid cap on staff and administration costs. The report detailed those Partners who had expressed an interest and advised that The South East Health and Social Care Trust had expressed an interest in running CYP3 Early Intervention Programme, but may be unaware of the implications of Partner Delivery.

The report stated that there were significant financial and reputational risks for both to the delivery partner and the lead partner (the Council), associated with the partner delivery approach.

The Partnership should be aware that members of the partnership could deliver elements of the PEACE IV Programme as delivery partners on a “real cost” basis. If the Lead Partner opted for tender delivery, the relative flexibility of the programme rules would be replaced by the more rigid public procurement regulations, including the issue of a policy, managing potential conflicts of interest. If the Partners wished to proceed with a public procurement process, which may include tender bids from Partner organisations or other associated interests, SEUPB would wish to be advised and consider the management arrangements for potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, SEUPB had stated that they must approve in advance of project implementation, how the Partnership agreed to manage conflicts of interest, tender procedures and tender awards. This level of scrutiny and process of approval would reduce the level of risk the lead partner and delivery partners were exposed to. Current legal advice was that the Lead Partner (Council) seeks confirmation from SEUPB that, once drafted, the Conflict of Interest Policy for the PEACE IV Partnership, its method of delivery and interpretation of Rule 9.37 satisfied the requirements of the Managing Authority. The report proposed that the Partnership reconsidered the mixed delivery approach, previously approved and agreed and that the Plan was delivered, as originally submitted to the Managing Authority, solely through a tender approach, subject to the specified confirmation from the Managing Authority. This would ensure that the delivery of the

3

PEACE projects was subject to open competition and partners would be able to bid for delivery.

The following entered the meeting at this stage: CI Gerry McGrath at 18.43, Owen Brady at 18.45, Nicola Dorrian at 18.48, Alison Blayney and Sandra Henderson at 18.52 and Shelia bailie at 18.54.

In response to a query posed by a Member regarding tender profit elements, the Head of Community and Culture said that the best value for money submission would be awarded the bid.

She also advised that under the partner delivery approach, Officers would have had to inspect every receipt, invoice and payment, whereas for tender there was only one invoice, meaning a significant reduction to administration costs.

The Head of Community and Culture advised Members that the Partnership will be required to submit to SEUPB a Conflict of Interest statement which will detail the processes that the Partnership will put in place to ensure good practice in relation to Conflicts of Interest. The statement will have to be agreed by Members and approved by SEUPB.

In response to a query posed by a Member regarding why SEHSCT had not yet met with Officers to discuss the delivery of CYP3, the Head of Community and Culture said that the expression of interest had only recently been raised and therefore there had been insufficient time, to set up a meeting.

In response to a query regarding the Tendering process, the Head of Community and Culture said that Officers would be developing the Tenders and scoring the bids so no Members around the table would have a conflict of interest in the process.

The Head of Community and Culture said that all Conflicts of Interest would be managed by the Secretariat to enable all interested parties (around the table and public) to apply for tenders.

A short discussion on delivery mechanisms followed the initial questions. It was confirmed that, after meetings with the four parties who had each expressed an interest in delivering a project, no one lead partner had been identified. This was due to the huge risk which would be taken by a lead partner.

When discussing programmes CYP1 and BPR1 concerns were raised regarding groups with enough expertise within the borough who could place a winning tender bid and run the programme successfully. The Head of Community and Culture said that the market had not been tested and there was a possibility when the tender was advertised that there may not be an organisation who could deliver the programme. She said that in this case, other options would have to be considered. She added that the Partnership did run the risk that if there were no

4

tender bids for a programme, the funding allocated for that project could be withdrawn by SEUPB.

RECOMMENDATION It was recommended that the PEACE IV Partnership approves the delivery of the PEACE Plan as originally agreed.

Alderman Irvine proposed, seconded by Councillor Smart that the report be adopted.

Alderman Irvine left the meeting at this stage – 18.59pm AGREED.

7. REPORT SUB GROUPS/WORKING GROUPS AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Report on Appointment to Sub Groups and Draft Terms of Reference.

A report advising Members that consideration was being given to the establishment of sub-groups and working groups, to undertake appropriate functions of the PEACE Partnership. The report stated that in terms of the Finance and Monitoring Sub-Group, the group would be responsible for the monitoring (including financial monitoring) for each project and the sub group would report to each partnership meeting. It was anticipated the group would meet once a month approximately 10 days in advance of the Partnership meeting, to allow for minutes to be prepared for the Partnership meeting. It was proposed that the sub group be made up of 4 Elected Members, 3 Statutory Agencies and 2 Social Partners.

The report stated that it had been previously recommended that a working group be established to oversee the appointment of delivery agents.

Officers had sought further advice from the Councils Procurement section and in line with Council policy and potentional Conflict of Interests, all tendering and appointment of partners should be conducted entirely by Council Officers. Officer recommendations would then be brought to the Partnership for consideration.

RECOMMENDED

It was recommended that PEACE IV Partnership:

1. Agrees the establishment of a Finance and Monitoring Sub, 2. Seeks nominations for this group, 3. Agrees the terms of reference for this working group.

5

It was proposed by Alderman Carson and seconded by Councillor Keery that Item 6: Report on Appointment to Sub Groups and Draft Terms of Reference be adopted.

The Chair invited Members to propose nominations for the sub group. The sub group was appointed as follows: all agreed.

Member group Member appointed to sub group

Elected Members Alderman Angus Carson Alderman Bill Keery Alderman Robert Gibson Councillor Eddie Thompson Statutory agencies Gerry McGrath Ralston Perera Owen Brady Social Partners Pete Wray Jeanette McNulty

AGREED.

8. REPORT ON PROPOSED MEETING DATES FOR 2017

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Report on Proposed Meeting dates for 2017.

The Chair advised Members that in the interests of good governance and forward planning, further meeting dates were been proposed from 1st April 2017 to 31st December 2017. The report stated that Officers had consulted with the Councils Democratic Services Unit, to ensure there would be no clash with other Council committees and functions. The report stated that the proposed dates may be subject to change in exceptional circumstances.

The Chair also advised that the date of the next meeting had been changed from 16th February at 6.30pm to 9th February 2017 at 4pm. The location of the meeting (Londonderry Park) would remain the same.

RECOMMENDED

It was recommended on the proposal of Alderman Keery, seconded by Sandra Henderson that the schedule of future meeting of 2017 be agreed.

AGREED.

9. CORRESPONDENCE FROM SEUPB

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED:

6

Letter (13 January 2016) from John Greer, Head of Joint Technical Secretariat Unit, SEUPB, to Mr Stephen Reid re. PEACE IV Local Action Plan Letter of Offer was circulated.

A letter advising that SEUPB would be reissuing the original Letter of Offer (LOO) after feedback from other authorities suggested that LOO’s contained too much detail. The letter stated that any changes would be small and will not undo any considerations of the contents to this point. The letter advised that these new LOO’s would be issued within a few days of the date of this letter.

It was agreed to recommend on the proposal of Alderman Keery, seconded by that the letter be Noted.

10. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

The Chair advised that Ray Gilbert had now left the Education Authority. A replacement would be sought in due course.

NOTED.

11. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

The Chair reminded Members that the next meeting which was previously scheduled to take place on Thursday 19th February would now take place on Thursday 9th February at 4pm in Londonderry Park. He advised that this change was made in order to facilitate SEUPB approval deadlines.

NOTED.

The meeting concluded at 19.23.

7

ARDS and NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL PEACE IV PARTNERSHIP Thursday 9th February 2017

A meeting of the Ards and North Down Borough Council PEACE IV Partnership was held in Londonderry Park, Newtownards at 4pm on the above date.

Present: In the Chair: Alderman Angus Carson

Elected Members: Alderman Wesley Irvine Alderman Bill Keery Councillor Richard Smart Councillor Gavin Walker Councillor Alan Leslie Councillor Eddie Thompson

Statutory Agencies Owen Brady- NI Housing Executive Ralston Perera- South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath- Police Service of NI. Kelvin Doherty- Youth Justice Agency

Social Partners Pete Wray – Young People Janette McNulty- Trade Union Sandra Henderson-Community Shelia Bailie- Voluntary

Officers in Attendance Mr Graeme Bannister (Director of Community and Wellbeing) Mrs Jan Nixey (Head of Community and Culture) Mrs Nicola Dorrian (External Funding Manager) Mrs Gillian McCready (PEACE IV Officer) Mrs Linda Bradshaw (PEACE IV Finance Officer) Miss Laura McCamley (Administrative Officer)

1

1. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR

The PEACE IV Officer welcomed everyone to the meeting. The Officer advised that a Chair needed to be appointed to Chair the meeting. The Officer reminded Members that the Interim Chair should be appointed from the elected members and any member could nominate or second a proposal for this position. In addition, the draft Partnership Agreement stated that this should be rotated amongst the political parties represented on the Partnership. Therefore, nominations were sought from the UUP or Alliance Party.

It was proposed by Janette McNulty, seconded by Councillor Walker that Alderman Carson Chair the meeting.

It was further proposed by Alderman Keery, seconded by Councillor Leslie that Councillor Thompson Chair the meeting.

The Head of Community and Culture advised that as Councillor Thompson was elected as a DUP Councillor and DUP had previously acted as Chair for the Partnership, then a rotation of parties should be sought. Members were asked to refer to Point 4, Structure and Representation of the Shadow Partnership Agreement which stated that: “The Chairmanship will be rotated between the elected members of the various political parties represented on the PEACE IV Partnership.”

Alderman Keery withdrew his proposal.

As there were no further nominations, Alderman Carson took the Chair for the meeting.

AGREED.

2. APOLOGIES

Apologies for inability to attend were received from Alderman Alan McDowell, Stephen Dallas (Education Authority Youth Service), Alison Blayney (Women’s groups), Leigh Nelson (Business Sector). Apologies for expected lateness were received from Alderman Wesley Irvine and Dorothy Beattie. NOTED.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chair invited any declarations of interest foreseen on the agenda to be raised at this point. He also advised that declarations of interest could also be raised throughout the meeting.

2

None were raised.

Alderman Irvine entered the meeting at 4.10pm. NOTED.

4. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY 19TH JANUARY 2017

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Copy of minutes of PEACE IV Partnership Meeting held on 19th January 2017.

It was agreed that there were no matters arising.

RECOMMENDED that the Partnership agree the minutes of the meeting held on 19th January.

It was proposed by Councillor Thompson and seconded by Councillor Smart that the minutes be adopted. AGREED.

5. REPORT ON PEACE IV PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Report on PEACE IV Partnership Agreement and Annex 1 – Partnership Agreement.

A report by the Head of Community and Culture was tabled advising that a requirement of the draft Letter of Offer stated a Partnership Agreement be adopted by Members and submitted to SEUPB as part of the conditions of Permission to Start. The report stated that the final signed agreement must be submitted by 21 March 2017.

The report stated that the Agreement was based on a template provided by SEUPB which had been tailored to meet local requirements. In addition to the final agreement, it stated that Members would be required to sign and complete a statement of Conflict of Interest.

The Head of Community and Culture said that the final Letter of Offer (LoO) was still outstanding and that copies of the Work Plan, Budget Plan and Communication Plan were not attached to the Agreement due to the management of the Conflict of Interest policy for Members who may wish to tender for the delivery of some of the programmes.

The PEACE IV Officer advised that a Master copy of the Agreement would be available for Members to sign at the end of the meeting.

RECOMMENDED that the Partnership:  Adopts the attached Partnership Agreement,

3

 Each Member signs the Agreement,  Each member signs the Conflict of Interest form,  The signed Agreement is forwarded to SEUPB as required under the ‘Permission to Start’ conditions.

It was proposed by Sandra Henderson and seconded by Alderman Irvine that the Partnership Agreement be adopted by the Partnership. ADOPTED.

In advance of item 6, the interim Chair, Alderman Carson, vacated the position of Chair.

6. REPORT ON APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR FOR A 12- MONTH TERM

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Report on appointment of Chair and Vice Chair for a 12-month term.

The report by the Head of Community and Culture stated that a requirement of the agreed Partnership Agreement is that a Chair and Vice Chair be appointed to the Partnership for a 12-month term.

The Head of Community and Culture referred Members to Article 5.2 of the Partnership Agreement which stated:

5.2 The Chairman for the Partnership shall be an Elected Member and appointed from all the Partnership Members. If the Chairman is present, he/she must take the Chair. In the absence of the Chairman, the Vice Chair shall be appointed to take the Chair for the duration of the meeting or until such time as the Chairman arrives. The Chairman will be appointed for a 12-month period and this will be rotated amongst the political parties represented on the Council.

Chair election

It was proposed by Councillor Smart, seconded by Jeanette McNulty that Alderman Carson Chair the Partnership.

In response to a query posed by a Member regarding the D’Hondt system and party distribution within the Partnership, the Head of Community and Culture stated that although the Elected Members were elected to the Partnership under the D’Hondt system, appointments to the positions of the PEACE IV Chair and Vice Chair, were not made through the D’Hondt system. Appointments were made in line with the Partnership Agreement.

It was further proposed by Alderman Irvine, seconded by Councillor Leslie that Councillor Thompson be appointed to Chair the Partnership.

4

The PEACE IV Officer asked Members for any further nominations. As there were no further nominations the Officer advised Members that the election of Chair for the Partnership would proceed to a vote.

With 11 votes for Alderman Carson and 3 for Councillor Thompson, Alderman Carson was appointed Chair of the PEACE IV Partnership for a 12 month period until 9th February 2018. AGREED.

Alderman Carson took his position as Chair.

Vice Chair election

The Head of Community and Culture referred Members to Article 5.3 of the Partnership Agreement which states:

5.3 The Vice Chair for the Partnership shall be a Social Partner and appointed from all the Partnership Members. The Vice Chair will Chair meetings of the PEACE IV Partnership in the absence of the Chair until such time as the Chairman arrives. The Vice Chair will be rotated amongst the Social Partners and appointed for a 12-month period.

It was proposed by Sandra Henderson, seconded by Richard Smart that Jeanette McNulty be elected as Vice Chair of the Partnership.

As there were no further nominations for the position of Vice Chair then, Jeanette McNulty was duly elected to this position. AGREED.

7. REPORT ON PEACE IV PROGRAMME UPDATE

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: PEACE IV Programme Update

A report by the PEACE IV Officer advising Members that the Steering Committee had agreed to offer a grant up to a maximum of £3,310,692.36, to be expended and claimed by 31st March 2019.

The report advised that the Steering Committee had attached a number of additional conditions to the draft Letter of Offer, including eleven Pre Commencement Conditions which had to be responded to before 14th February 2017. A further number of Project Implementation Conditions, General Conditions and Permission to Start requirements also had to be responded to by 21st March 2017 before being approved and then formal written permission to start would be issued to the Council. These conditions include the requirement of the submission of additional information including detailed operational timetables and detailed procurement plans.

5

9. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

The Chair advised that the next Partnership meeting had been set for Thursday 23rd March at 6.30pm in Londonderry Park.

The Chair asked Members if they agreed on the time on the next meeting. It was highlighted that the earlier time of 4pm had drawn a higher attendance level among Members and it was proposed that the time of meetings be changed to reflect this.

Members agreed that the time of future meetings should be changed from 6.30pm to 4pm. The next meeting would be held on Thursday 23rd March at 4pm in Londonderry Park, Newtownards.

The Chair asked the Secretariat to contact all Members, to re-schedule future meeting dates and times.

NOTED.

The meeting terminated at 4.37pm.

7

ITEM 5

ARDS and NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL PEACE IV PARTNERSHIP Thursday 23rd March 2017

A meeting of the Ards and North Down Borough Council PEACE IV Partnership was held in Londonderry Park, Newtownards at 4pm on the above date.

Present: In the Chair: Alderman Angus Carson

Elected Members: Alderman Bill Keery Alderman Robert Gibson Alderman Alan McDowell Councillor Richard Smart Councillor Gavin Walker Councillor Alan Leslie

Statutory Agencies Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath- Police Service of NI. Kelvin Doherty- Youth Justice Agency Stephen Dallas- Education Authority Youth Service Paul Walsh- SERC

Social Partners Pete Wray – Young People Janette McNulty- Trade Union Shelia Bailie- Voluntary James McKerrow- Older People Katy Radford- BME

Officers in Attendance Mrs Nicola Dorrian (External Funding Manager) Mrs Gillian McCready (PEACE IV Officer) Mrs Linda Bradshaw (PEACE IV Finance Officer) Miss Laura McCamley (Administrative Officer)

1

ITEM 5

1. WELCOME FROM THE CHAIR

The Chair thanked everyone for attending and welcomed James McKerrow, who attended on behalf of Dorothy Beattie (Social Partner for Older People). The Chair asked Members to introduce themselves in turn to Mr McKerrow. NOTED. 2. APOLOGIES

Apologies for inability to attend were received from Alderman Wesley Irvine, Councillor Eddie Thompson, Caroline Woods (Education Authority), Owen Brady (Northern Ireland Housing Executive), Ralston Perera (South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust), Graeme Bannister (Director of Community and Well Being), Jan Nixey (Head of Community and Culture). NOTED.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chair invited any declarations of interest foreseen on the agenda to be raised at this point. He also advised that declarations of interest could also be raised throughout the meeting.

None were raised.

NOTED.

4. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY 9TH FEBRUARY 2017

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Copy of minutes of PEACE IV Partnership Meeting held on 9th February 2017.

It was noted that Katy Radford had attended the meeting but that her name had been omitted from the minutes.

RECOMMENDED that the Partnership agree the minutes of the meeting held on 9th February 2017, subject to the noted amendment.

It was proposed by Katy Radford and seconded by Councillor Smart that the minutes be adopted.

AGREED.

2

ITEM 5

5. REPORT ON PEACE IV PROGRAMME

Alderman Keery arrived at 16.14

The Chair asked Mrs Nicola Dorrian (Externally Funded Programmes Manager) to make her presentation on the work of PEACE IV to date.

Mrs Dorrian updated the Members as follows:

- What the programme is, who are main funding bodies are and where the programme operates. - The overall programme is worth £270m with 15% match funding included. - The staffing structures of the PEACE IV team within AND Council. - The four themes of the programme: Shared Education; Children and Young People; Shared Spaces and Services and Building Positive Relations. Shared Education would be managed centrally, and not by the Partnership. - The allocated budget for each theme, noting that these are set budgets and cannot be moved between themes. - The key stages of the application process, noting that December 2015 was the beginning of the process. A final Letter of Offer has yet to be received. Future dates were also noted. - The Community engagement process, which involved 650 people across the Borough. - The establishment of the PEACE IV Partnership in September 2016. Composition of Partnership: 9 Elected Members, 7 Statutory Partners and 8 Social Partners. - The overall objective of each theme. - Training objectives.

The Chair invited Members to raise queries on the presentation.

In response to a query posed by a Member regarding where the Shared Spaces locations would be, the PEACE IV Officer stated that unfortunately at this stage the locations could not be released.

Stephen Dallas arrived at 16.29

In response to a query posed by a Member regarding an extension to the PEACE IV Programme, the PEACE IV Officer said that the PEACE IV team were to request an extension from SEUPB. The Officer said that although it had been alluded to during phone conversations with SEUPB, no written confirmation of an extension had yet been received.

3

ITEM 5

The PEACE IV Officer stated that an information seminar hosted by SEUPB was to take place on 5th April 2017. The Officer hoped the Letter of Offer would be received by that date. NOTED. 6. UPDATE REPORT ON PEACE IV PROGRAMME AND CORRESPONDENCE FROM SEUPB

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: a) Correspondence dated 10.02.17 from SEUPB re PEACE IV Local Action Plans (Copy attached)

Email correspondence from Brenda Hegarty (SEUPB) advising that a budget issue had been identified and advising that this issue would now impact the release of the Final Letter of Offer. b) Correspondence dated 15.02.17 from SEUPB re Lead Partners eMS (Copy attached)

A letter from John Greer (SEUPB) advising that SEUPB was currently rolling out a new database system which would be used to record funding awards and subsequent claims. The letter advised that this news system (eMS) was in the final stages of installation and testing and that each Lead Paper would be given log on details in due course. The letter asked the Lead Partner to prepare specific information on budgets in advance and noted 10 steps which should be taken by Lead Partners in preparation of the launch. c) Correspondence dated 20.02.17 from SEUPB Re Managing Potential Conflicts of Interest (Copy attached)

Email correspondence from Siobhan Colton (SEUPB) asking Lead Partners to provide additional information, including:  Confirmation of the delivery approach;  Confirmation of any organisation included in the Partnership who may wish to deliver goods or services to the Partnership together with the activity and the potential value;  Confirmation of the selection process adopted by the Partnership for the engagement of the Social Partners e.g. open recruitment and evidence of same; Confirmation that in the exceptional circumstance when a member of the partnership wishes to tender for work emerging from a procurement exercise that the member has had no involvement in initiating the project/drawing up the tender specification, as well as all future stages in the tender process;  Confirmation of the selection arrangements to be adopted for the award of Partner Delivery contracts to members of the partnership; Identify any circumstances of an organisation not a member of the partnership who has

4

ITEM 5

engaged with the Partnership in identifying an activity /drawing up the tender specification who may wish to engage in the tender process and arrangements for the management of same; SEUPB had been furnished with a copy of ANDBC’s Peace IV Partnerships conflict of interest policy. d) Correspondence dated 21.02.17 from SEUPB re Permission to Start (Copy attached)

Email correspondence from Siobhan Colton advising that a number of permission to start requirements had been impacted by the delay in implementation of the eMS system.

Following a meeting with the Chair and Vice Chair to discuss the Agenda for the meeting, it was agreed that correspondence be issued to the Chief Executive of SEUPB (Item 6e) on 16th March.

e) Correspondence dated 16th March 2017 to Chief Executive of SEUPB regarding delays in permission to start and request for an extension.

A letter from the Head of Community & Culture to Ms Gina McIntyre expressing concerns over delays in receiving the final Letter of Offer (LoO) and the impact this would have on programme timeframes. The letter asked SEUPB to confirm the following:  When the final Letter of Offer, with amendments, would be received.  If an extension to allow for the original delivery timeframe of 24 months will be granted until at least July 2019, and;  When the eMS database will be available for use.

TABLED AT MEETING: f) Correspondence dated 21st March 2017 from Mr Shaun Henry, Director of the Managing Authority, SEUPB in relation to the Letter of Offer status. Tabled.

A memorandum regarding the status of Letters of Offer. The memorandum details the reason for the delay in the issue of LoO’s stating that a budget reconciliation and full review of all budgets across the whole programme needed to be completed. It stated that this reconciliation exercise had resulted in amendment to some budgets. The memorandum also advised about changes to the simplified cost option and staffing costs and further information on the eMS database. Item 14 stated that SEUPB aimed to upload all budgets to eMS by 31st March 2017.

The Officer said that SEUPB would not be issuing a Letter of Offer until the eMS information was completed. This would have a knock on effect on the commencement date.

5

ITEM 5

The Chair asked Members for comments.

In response to a query posed by a Member regarding eMS, the PEACE IV Officer said that this system was new to the Peace programme.

In response to a query posed by a Member regarding staffing and staffing budget percentages, the PEACE IV Officer said that funding to cover staff had been set at 12% of the programme budget and that overheads had been set at 15% of that 12%. The PEACE IV Officer said that Council would be required to cover secretariat costs additional to this funding. The Officer also said that there would be a new employment opportunity within the secretariat and that this would be a fixed term post.

In response to a further query the PEACE IV Officer said that there would be a sub group set up within the Partnership to monitor finance within the programme and that Members of the sub group would receive the appropriate training.

One member asked for an update on how the ANDBC current progress compared to other Councils on the programme. The PEACE IV Officer confirmed that information gathered by speaking to colleagues at Managers meetings would suggest that ANDBC were in a better position than some other Partners within the programme. She added that there was a managers meeting the following week and she could provide an update at the next Partnership meeting.

RECOMMENDED that a proposer and seconder note the correspondence.

It was proposed by Councillor Smart and seconded by Katy Radford that the correspondence be noted. NOTED.

7. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

The Chair asked Members for items of Any Other Business.

No items of business were raised. NOTED.

8. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

The Chair advised that the next Partnership meeting would be held on Thursday 27th April at 4pm in Londonderry Park.

NOTED.

The meeting terminated at 4.50pm.

6

ARDS and NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL PEACE IV PARTNERSHIP Thursday 27 April 2017

A meeting of the Ards and North Down Borough Council PEACE IV Partnership was held in Londonderry Park, Newtownards at 4pm on the above date.

Present: In the Chair: Alderman Angus Carson

Elected Members: Alderman Robert Gibson Alderman Wesley Irvine Alderman Bill Keery Alderman Alan McDowell Councillor Richard Smart Councillor Gavin Walker

Statutory Agencies Caroline Woods - Education Authority Owen Brady - NI Housing Executive Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath - Police Service of NI Ralston Perera - South Eastern Health & Social Care Trust Stephen Dallas - Education Authority, Youth Service

Social Partners Sandra Henderson - Community James McKerrow - Older People Pete Wray - Young People Katy Radford - BME Leigh Nelson - Business Sector Janette McNulty - Trade Union (Vice Chair)

Officers in Attendance Mrs Jan Nixey (Head of Community and Culture) Mr Graeme Bannister (Director of Community and Wellbeing) Mrs Nicola Dorrian (External Funding Manager) Mrs Gillian McCready (PEACE IV Officer) Mrs Linda Bradshaw (PEACE IV Finance Officer) Miss Laura McCamley (Administrative Officer)

1

1. WELCOME FROM THE CHAIR

The Chair (Alderman Angus Carson) thanked everyone for attending and welcomed Caroline Woods, the newly appointed Education Authority representative, to the meeting. The Chair asked Members to introduce themselves. NOTED. 2. APOLOGIES

Apologies for inability to attend were received from Councillor Alan Leslie, Kelvin Doherty (Youth Justice Agency), Alison Blayney (Women’s groups) and Sheila Bailie (Voluntary Sector). Dorothy Beattie sent her apologies and advised that Older people would be represented by her colleague James McKerrow.

NOTED.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chair (Alderman Angus Carson) invited any declarations of interest on the agenda. He also advised that declarations of interest could also be raised throughout the meeting.

No declarations of interest were received.

NOTED.

4. PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT AND ANNEX E, CODE OF CONDUCT

The Chair (Alderman Angus Carson) advised Members that it had come to the Officers attention that there had been a breach of confidentially within the Partnership. The Chair reminded Members of the confidentiality elements within the Partnership Agreement and Code of Conduct by reading the following statement:

Extract of the Code of Conduct:

3.6 No Member shall disclose to any person, other than another Member, any information, whether written or verbal or electronically recorded, generated or received by the Member in his/her capacity as such which breaches the level of confidentiality placed on the information by the PEACE IV Partnership or which would be injurious to the interests of the PEACE IV Partnership or unfairly prejudicial to any other body or

2

person without the authorisation of the Chair of the PEACE IV Partnership.

It is the duty of Members to safeguard all official documents (including copies thereof) by placing them in secure cabinets. It is also the duty of Members to take appropriate steps to safeguard equivalent electronic records.

Members who do not adhere to, or do not give, an undertaking on appointment that they will comply with the requirements of confidentiality will limit the ability of the PEACE IV Partnership to conduct its business and limit the information made available to them and other Members. It may also result in exclusion from attendance at confidential briefings.

NOTED.

5. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY 23 March 2017

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Copy of the minutes of the PEACE IV Partnership Meeting held on 23 March 2017.

RECOMMENDED that the Partnership agree the minutes of the meeting held on 23 March 2017.

It was proposed by Alderman Keery and seconded by Councillor Smart that the minutes be adopted.

AGREED.

6. MATTERS ARISING

The Chair (Alderman Angus Carson) advised Members that at the last Partnership meeting on 23 March 2017, Officers agreed to report to the April meeting on the Council’s progress compared to other Councils. The Chair invited the PEACE IV Officer to update Members on such progress.

The PEACE IV Officer advised Members on the following points; -

1. That all documents requested by SEUPB had been submitted, whereas some other Councils still had outstanding requirements to submit.

3

2. In terms of funding, ANDBC had received almost 100% of their application of funding, whereas other Councils had shortfalls and were being rebidding for funds.

3. At a meeting, held by SEUPB on 5th April, Councils were told that only those using the ‘Tender Option’ could avail of the ‘simplified costs’ model. This mode of delivery was the preferred option for ANDBC.

4. Out of the seventeen Councils participating in the PEACE IV programme, two or three were at the same stage as ANDBC. Council is still awaiting an official Letter of Offer following the submissions and review of the eMS system.

5. Members were reassured that ANDBC were generally ahead of the game when compared to other Councils.

In response to a query posed by a Member regarding the shortfall of funding awarded, the Officer advised that the funding had been reduced by approximately £30,000 due to the removal of the Partnership and Consortia Development programme. The reason for this programme being disallowed was that SEUPB felt that they could offer a more cost effective training option across the seventeen Councils, rather than funding individual training projects.

Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath and Vice Chair Jeanette McNulty commended the PEACE IV team on the progress which had been made to date, whilst under enormous pressure. Alderman Keery asked for this positive feedback to be recorded.

NOTED.

7. UPDATE REPORT ON PEACE IV PROGRAMME

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Update report on PEACE IV Programme dated 27 April 2017 from the PEACE IV Officer.

Members were advised that the original timeframe for the PEACE IV Programme was 2014-2020. The anticipated date for programme commencement had slipped considerably, mainly due to SEUPBs delays in establishing the eMS system and other competing priorities. The likely implementation date for the majority of projects would be September 2017.

In the light of the issues noted, Officers wrote to SEUPB requesting an extension to the implementation of the programme to December 2020. The extension was approved on 13 April 2017, however SEUPB advised that the management wrap up of the programme must be concluded by this date. Therefore, project completion must be finalised by 30 September 2020 to allow 3 months for programme closure.

4

The extension had been approved within existing budgets and no further funding for either project costs or secretariat costs would be made available.

Members were also reminded on the update report presented at the PEACE IV meeting on 23 March 2017, that a response from SEUPB in relation to the pre- commencement conditions (submitted on 14 February 2017) and permission to start conditions (submitted on 21 March 2017) remained outstanding.

In addition, Tenders would not be advertised until the following has been completed: 1. The Councils formal Letter of Offer is signed and accepted 2. Pre-commencement and permission to start conditions are met 3. The tender documentation is reviewed by SEUPB

However, it is anticipated that delivery of programmes will commence in September 2017.

Leigh Nelson arrived at 4.15pm

Stephen Dallas arrived at 4.17pm

Katy Radford arrived at 4.19pm

In response to a query raised by a Member regarding SEUPB’s involvement with tenders and approval of tenders, the Officer advised that tenders have to be submitted to SEUPB for review before they could be publically advertised and the successful tender would need to be approved by SEUPB before a contract was issued.

The Officer added that this review by SEUPB was to ensure the tender met all the necessary requirements and proper due diligence.

In response to a query posed by a Member regarding losing delivery time if the projects were not started by September 2017 the Officer confirmed that as the programme had been extended to 2020 there would be an increase in available delivery times.

In response to a query posed by a Member regarding the 3-month evaluation timeframe, stating that 3 months was often not long enough, the Officer said that there would be ongoing monitoring and review of all projects throughout the delivery time in order to reduce time spent at the end on evaluations.

There were no further queries.

RECOMMENDED that the Partnership notes this report.

5

It was proposed by Alderman Keery and seconded by Alderman Irvine that the report be noted. NOTED.

8. CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE (CYP), EARLY INTERVENTION PROJECT

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Report on the Early Intervention Project and attached ANDBC PEACE IV Plan, emerging approaches and programmes.

The report from the PEACE IV Officer advised Members of an issue that had arisen within the Early Intervention Project. The Officer said that during an information session hosted by SEUPB on 5 April 2017, Councils were advised that the assessment process for regional funding was complete and that the Education Authority had been appointed to deliver a regional project in primary schools, to promote shared education. As a result of this decision SEUPB had advised that all projects targeting early years and primary schools would be withdrawn from their local Peace Plans.

However, Councils would have an opportunity to re-submit alternative proposals for consideration. Alternative proposals must comply with the programme aims and objectives and with the needs of the Borough, which were identified through the consultation process and detailed in the Ards and North Down Borough Council PEACE IV Action Plan.

Members were reminded that the total value of the Early Intervention Project was £135,000 and that the funding must be retained within the Children and Young People Theme. It could not be vired to another theme within the programme.

The Officer advised Members that based on the “emerging issues” identified in the ANDBC local action Plan a number of options had been considered by Officers, which include: 1. Do nothing: If this option is adopted, £135,000 would be lost to the Borough. 2. Develop a new project: If this option is adopted and in order not to compromise the tender process Officers would develop an alternative programme, up to a maximum budget of £135,000. 3. Enhance existing projects: If this option is adopted the following approved projects, under the Children and Young people theme would be enhanced:

 Capacity Building and Youth Leadership Programme (£158,000)  Youth Shelters (£92,000)  Primary Schools (out of school) Active Diversity and Good Relations Programme (£119,217)  Community Based Sports and Good Relations Programme (£103,700)

6

In response to a query posed by a Member regarding the possibility of developing a new programme, the Officer said that although developing a new programme could be a possibility, it would need to meet the same needs as outlined in the original application to SEUPB.

Several Members proposed that Officers incorporate the following members ideas into the existing programmes or alternatively develop as new programmes:- Pete Wray - Policing and Young People, Katy Radford - Race and Good Relations post Brexit, Stephen Dallas - Early Intervention including youth engagement and youth justice.

Stephen Dallas, referring to the attached Item 8 document Emerging Approaches and Programmes and made reference to Mental Health being higher on the priority list.

In response to a query posed by a Member regarding enhancing current projects and financial restrictions, the Officer informed Members that due to the EU Tender thresholds, existing projects should not exceed £160k.

In response to a query posed by a Member who queried the wording ‘Active Diversity and Good Relations’ the Officer said that this phrase meant looking at sports in the broader context i.e Cross-Community and Good Relations.

There were no further queries.

RECOMMENDED that the PEACE IV Partnership agrees that Officers further investigate options 2 and 3 with recommendations to be presented to the next meeting.

It was proposed by Alderman Irvine, seconded by Alderman Keery and agreed by Members that this would be the best action to take.

AGREED.

9. SEUPB SEMINAR HELD ON 5 APRIL 2017

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Report on SEUPB Seminar and attached SEUPB presentation.

The PEACE IV Officer advised Members that SEUPB had held a seminar for all lead Councils who were implementing PEACE IV programmes on 5 April 2017, at the Stormont Hotel, Belfast. The seminar was attended by the PEACE IV team, Service Unit Manager and Head of Service.

7

The agenda for the seminar included:

 Background and Overview  Structure of the Programmes  Introducing the eMS  Key Partnership Roles and Responsibilities  Support from SEUPB/Partnership Training Programme.

The Officer advised that further training for Officers had been planned by SEUPB and that training for Partnership Members would be discussed under item 10 of the Agenda.

RECOMMENDED that the PEACE IV Partnership notes the report.

It was proposed by Katy Radford and seconded by Alderman Gibson that this report be noted.

NOTED.

10. MEMBERS TRAINING

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Report on Member training.

The PEACE IV Officer informed Members that the date of Thursday 29 June had been proposed for Member training. An Agenda was currently being developed and that the training session would include key information presented at the SEUPB seminar held on April 5 2017. This would also include key partnership roles and responsibilities, key responsibilities for lead partners, programme rules and information regarding publicity. The Officer said the training would be followed by the scheduled meeting of the PEACE IV Partnership.

A discussion followed regarding the length of training required. The Chair (Alderman Carson) commented that PEACE III required 3 days of training. Chief Inspector McGrath asked that ‘Training’ be kept as an Agenda item for future meetings in case additional training was required. Chief Inspector McGrath also welcomed the full day and asked the training commence at 9am to make the most out of the time available.

A Member sought clarification if training would be a prerequisite of the LoO and Partnership Agreement. The PEACE IV Officer advised that although training was not written into the LoO or the Agreement it would be extremely beneficial for all Members to attend. She said the training would set out what was expected from all Members and the secretariat.

In response to a query posed by the Vice Chair, Jeanette McNulty, regarding the withdrawal of Partnership and Consortium and training element, the PEACE IV

8

Officer said that it was understood that training would be given to Officers who would then deliver training directly to Members.

The Officer advised that the location of the training was still to be confirmed.

The Chair proposed a time of 9am on 29 June, to begin training at 9.30am sharp and finish at 4pm, when the scheduled Partnership meeting would take place.

RECOMMENDED that the PEACE IV Partnership notes the report.

Members agreed to the suggested arrangements and it was proposed by Councillor Walker and seconded by Katy Radford that the Partnership notes the report.

NOTED.

11. MEMBERS EXPENSES CLAIMS

PREVIOUS CIRCULATED: Report on Members Expenses and claim forms.

The PEACE IV Finance Officer advised Members that they were entitled to claim expenses while attending PEACE IV Partnership meetings and whilst carrying out duties associated with the Partnership in the delivery of the PEACE IV Programme.

The Officer advised the Statutory and Social Partners that they could claim from their first Partnership meeting provided they had not already claimed from their nominating organisation. Elected Members could claim from this meeting date (27 April 2017) using the new PEACE IV claim form, as previous mileage would have already been processed by Council.

In order to claim for the reimbursement of mileage the following documents would be required:  Current Insurance Certificate  V5 Vehicle Log Book  MOT Certificate (if applicable)  Driving licence

The Officer said that claim forms would be made available electronically and that the HMRC rate would be applicable to statutory and social partners. Elected Members would be reimbursed as per the rates set by the National Joint Council and adopted by Council.

RECOMMENDED that the PEACE IV Partnership adopt the report and use of the expenses claim form.

9

It was proposed by Sandra Henderson and seconded by Pete Wray that the Partnership adopt the report and expenses claim form. ADOPTED. 12. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

The Chair asked Members for items of any other Business.

No items of business were raised. NOTED.

13. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

The Chair advised Members that the next Partnership meeting would be held on Thursday 18th May at 4pm in Londonderry Park, Newtownards.

NOTED.

The meeting terminated at 4.50pm

10

ARDS and NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL PEACE IV PARTNERSHIP Thursday 29 June 2017

A meeting of the Ards and North Down Borough Council PEACE IV Partnership was held in the Clandeboye Lodge Hotel, Bangor at 3:45pm following the Members Training event on the above date.

Present: In the Chair: Alderman Angus Carson

Elected Members: Alderman Robert Gibson Alderman Wesley Irvine Councillor Alan Leslie Councillor Richard Smart Councillor Eddie Thompson Councillor Gavin Walker

Statutory Agencies Stephen Dallas - Education Authority, Youth Service Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath - Police Service of NI Ralston Perera - South Eastern Health & Social Care Trust Caroline Woods - Education Authority

Social Partners Sheila Bailie – Voluntary Sector Dorothy Beattie - Older People Janette McNulty - Trade Union (Vice Chair) Katy Radford - BME Pete Wray - Young People

Officers in Attendance Mrs Jan Nixey (Head of Community and Culture) Mr Graeme Bannister (Director of Community and Wellbeing) Mrs Nicola Dorrian (External Funding Manager) Mrs Gillian McCready (PEACE IV Officer) Mrs Linda Bradshaw (PEACE IV Finance Officer) Miss Colette Kelly (Assistant PEACE IV Officer)

1

1. WELCOME FROM THE CHAIR

The Chair, Alderman Carson on behalf of the PEACE IV Partnership members congratulated and thanked the Secretariat staff on the organisation of the successful PEACE IV training event held prior to commencement of the Partnership meeting. He then proceeded to welcome everyone for attending and welcomed Colette Kelly, the newly appointed Assistant PEACE IV Officer to the meeting.

NOTED.

2. APOLOGIES

Apologies for inability to attend were received from Alderman Bill Keery, Alderman Alan McDowell, Paul Walsh (South Eastern Regional College), Kelvin Doherty (Youth Justice Agency), Owen Brady (NI Housing Executive), Alison Blayney (Women’s groups), Sandra Henderson (Community Sector) and Leigh Nelson (Business Sector).

NOTED.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chair, Alderman Carson invited any declarations of interest on the agenda. He also advised that declarations of interest could also be raised throughout the meeting.

No declarations of interest were received.

At this stage, the Vice Chair, Janette McNulty interjected and made reference to the meeting on 18th May 2017 which was cancelled and where no reasons had been given to the Partnership members. She requested that going forward, reasons regarding the cancellation of meetings be conveyed to the Partnership members at time of notification.

NOTED.

4. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY 27 April 2017

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Copy of the minutes of the PEACE IV Partnership Meeting held on 27 April 2017.

RECOMMENDED that the Partnership agree the minutes of the meeting held on 27 April 2017.

2

It was proposed by Councillor Smart and seconded by Alderman Gibson that the minutes be adopted. AGREED.

5. MATTERS ARISING

There were no matters arising.

NOTED.

6. UPDATE REPORT ON PEACE IV PROGRAMME

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Update report on PEACE IV Programme dated 29 June 2017 from the PEACE IV Officer.

Members were advised that since the last meeting on 27th April, the PEACE IV secretariat have continued to correspond with SEUPB in anticipation of receipt of the Councils letter of offer and permission to start. It was hoped that 3 separate Letters of Offer ie; one for each strategic priority will be issued to the Council next week. Information was requested and provided to SEUPB on eMS requirements and quarterly cash flow forecasting. Officers were continuing to work towards the issuing of public tenders in late June or early July 2017. Following discussions with the Councils procurement section, tenders would be advertised on eTender NI in batches which would assist officers in the management of the tender process over the summer period. The first 5 tenders had been completed and were subject to final consideration and review by SEUPB. When final letters of offer were received and permission to start granted by SEUPB, then these tenders would be advertised. Members would be advised of the final timeline for appointment in due course however, it was anticipated that a special meeting of the Partnership may have to be convened in August to consider the recommendations of the assessment panel. In tandem with this process the next batch of seven tenders would be progressed and advertised following SEUPB approval. The final two tenders would be advertised following the necessary public consultation required for planning approval. Following a meeting with the Chair and the Vice Chair of the Peace IV Partnership on 20 June 2017 it was recommended that the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) write to SEUPB on behalf of all of the Councils asking when final letters of offer were to be received.

3

However, since that meeting, the following written confirmation from the Councils case officer in SEUPB was received on 20 June 2017: “The three projects (CYP, SSS and BPR) are now at ‘contracting stage’ on eMS which will allow us to generate the final Letters of Offer (1 per theme). Financial Control Unit (FCU) are currently completing the funding splits and Annex C (financial tables) for each Letter of Offer and once complete, SEUPB will then generate the Letters of Offer for final check and sign off by Management. We expect that this process should be completed within the coming days with the Letters of Offer signed off by our Chief Executive and issued to the Council within the next week”. The Chair, Alderman Carson confirmed that the request to SOLACE be postponed in anticipation of receipt of the LOO, week commencing 26 June 2017. In response to a query posed by Councillor Smart on clarity on the issuing of the Tenders, the Officer clarified that the issue of the first batch of five tenders would be managed by the Partnership and the second batch of seven tenders would be managed by the Council. The Shared Spaces and Services capital projects and Youth Shelters tenders, which would be issued last due to planning requirements, would also be managed by Council.

RECOMMENDED that the Partnership notes this report.

It was proposed by Alderman Irvine and seconded by Councillor Smart that the report be noted. NOTED.

7. REPORT ON NEW PROPOSALS

TABLED REPORT: Report on the new proposal for the Children and Young People Project (CYP3).

The Officer apologised for tabling the report which was due to the current priority to progress the tender exercise resulting in new projects not being fully researched and developed.

Members were advised at their last meeting in April 2017, that following the approval of the Education Authorities regional project targeting primary schools, the Partnerships Early Intervention Project had been withdrawn. SEUPB had advised that the Partnership would have an opportunity to submit an alternative bid. The

4

value of the project is £135,000 and must remain within the “Children and Young People” (CYP) theme.

At that meeting it was agreed that officers would bring back a further report on the following options:

1. Develop a new project 2. Enhance existing projects

However, it was recommended that the unallocated funding was not used to enhance existing projects. To rework and seek approval for the current CYP projects would delay the tender exercise. In addition, for some of the CYP projects, additional funding would take the total project budget over the procurement threshold and the projects would have to be advertised though the EU Journal, again delaying the tender exercise. Officers would continue to consider possible new projects which met the aims of the PEACE IV Programme and the needs of the area and bring a further report back to the Partnership for consideration in due course. Alderman Irvine sought clarification on timelines as the next meeting date was not scheduled to take place until September. The Officer advised that there was a possibility an earlier meeting in August may need to be scheduled to progress the programmes following the assessment of the tenders. Following concerns raised by Alderman Gibson on shared education, the Officer ensured the Member that the development of the new project would meet the needs within the Plan. RECOMMENDED that the PEACE IV Partnership agrees that the unallocated funding of £135,000 is ring-fenced for a new CYP project and Officers are tasked to bring back a further report on possible new projects.

It was proposed by Katy Radford, seconded by Councillor Smart that the report is agreed by Members.

AGREED.

8. REPORT ON COMMUNICATION PROTOCOL

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Report on Communication Protocol.

Members were advised at the PEACE IV Training in Communications, that it was essential for all communications to be co-ordinated by the PEACE IV Secretariat. This would ensure compliance with SEUPB requirements and avoid financial penalties being applied.

5

In keeping with the protocol adopted by Council (the Lead Partner), it was recommended that all communications were co-ordinated by the Secretariat and that only the Chair or Vice Chair should speak publically on behalf of the Partnership. The Chair and Vice Chair would be fully briefed before any statements were issued, again to ensure compliance with the SEUPB requirements.

RECOMMENDED that all communications are co-ordinated by the PEACE IV secretariat and only the Chair and Vice Chair speak publically on behalf of the Partnership. It was proposed by Katy Radford and seconded by Councillor Thompson that this report be noted.

AGREED. 9. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

The Chair asked Members for items of any other Business.

No items of business were raised. NOTED.

10. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

The Chair, Alderman Carson advised Members that the next Partnership meeting would be held on Thursday 14th September at 4pm in Londonderry Park, Newtownards however, it may be necessary to convene a special meeting in late August 2017. Members would be advised should this be required.

NOTED.

The meeting terminated at 4.10pm

6

ARDS and NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL PEACE IV PARTNERSHIP Thursday 14 September 2017

A meeting of the Ards and North Down Borough Council PEACE IV Partnership was held in the Londonderry Park, Newtownards at 4:00pm.

Present: In the Chair: Alderman Angus Carson

Elected Members: Alderman Robert Gibson Alderman Wesley Irvine Alderman Alan McDowell Councillor Richard Smart Councillor Eddie Thompson Councillor Gavin Walker

Statutory Agencies Stephen Dallas - Education Authority, Youth Service Inspector Ray Shaw in place of Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath - Police Service of NI Ralston Perera - South Eastern Health & Social Care Trust Caroline Woods - Education Authority Owen Brady – NI Housing Executive Kelvin Doherty – Youth Justice Agency

Social Partners Sheila Bailie – Voluntary Sector Sandra Henderson – Community Sector Dorothy Beattie - Older People Janette McNulty - Trade Union (Vice Chair) Katy Radford - BME

Officers in Attendance Mrs Jan Nixey (Head of Community and Culture) Mrs Nicola Dorrian (External Funding Manager) Mrs Gillian McCready (PEACE IV Officer) Mrs Linda Bradshaw (PEACE IV Finance Officer) Miss Colette Kelly (Assistant PEACE IV Officer) Mr Jonathan Bell (Peace IV / Community Development Administrator)

1

1. WELCOME FROM THE CHAIR

The Chair, Alderman Angus Carson thanked everyone for attending and welcomed members back after the summer break.

NOTED.

2. APOLOGIES

Apologies for inability to attend were received from Alderman Bill Keery, Councillor Alan Leslie, Councillor Gavin Walker, Paul Walsh (South Eastern Regional College), Alison Blayney (Women’s groups), Leigh Nelson (Business Sector), Pete Wray (Social Sector - Younger People) and Graeme Bannister (ANDBC).

NOTED.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chairman, Alderman Angus Carson invited any declarations of interest on the agenda. He also advised that declarations of interest could also be raised throughout the meeting.

No declarations of interest were received.

NOTED.

4. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY 27 April 2017

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Copy of the minutes of the PEACE IV Partnership Meeting held on Thursday 29 June 2017.

Vice Chair, Janette McNulty proposed a minor adjustment in the removal of term “interjected” stating the comment in question was invited by the Chair at the time.

AGREED. RECOMMENDED that the Partnership agree the minutes of the meeting held on 29 June 2017 with the proposed alterations.

It was proposed by Councillor Smart and seconded by Katy Radford that the minutes be adopted. AGREED.

2

5. REPORT ON TRAINING DAY ON 29TH JUNE INCLUDING MONITORING AND INFORMATION BEING PRESENTED TO PEACE IV PARTNERSHIP

The Chairman Alderman Carson invited the PEACE IV Officer to speak on the report. She stated that within the report there were conclusions and recommendations which the Partnership may wish to consider implementing, to identify which Partnership members are best placed to champion certain projects and to appoint those who wished to put themselves forward.

It would be the recommendation of the secretariat that those members be involved from the outset and attend the first meeting with the successful delivery agents and for site visits to be factored in where appropriate. The Officer outlined the time commitment involved and stated that members could not champion a project if they had any connection to the delivery agent. She went on to state that nominations for champions would be taken after the Projects had been approved by the members.

RECOMMENDED: That members approve the recommendation of appointing champions to each project.

Proposed by Councillor Thompson and seconded by Councillor Smart the recommendation be agreed.

AGREED.

6. UPDATE REPORT ON PEACE IV PROGRAMME

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Update report on PEACE IV Programme and correspondence from SEUPB.

The Head of Community and Culture, Jan Nixey advised members that since the last meeting on 29th June 2017, the PEACE IV secretariat had continued to correspond with SEUPB and on 7th July 2017 had received 3 Letters of Offer from SEUPB for the three priorities:  Children and Young People - £550,476.54,  Shared Spaces and Services - £1,189,683.01  Building Positive Relations - £1,431,264.34

As previously agreed the PEACE IV Partnership, would follow the Council’s procurement policy which complied with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and the Concession Contracts Regulations 2016 and this had been agreed with SEUPB.

On 17 July 2017, the PEACE IV Secretariat advertised five public tenders on e- tendersNI and e-tendersIreland for the delivery of 3 programmes under Children and Young people and 2 under Building Positive Relations:  CYP 1 - Capacity Building and Youth Leadership Programme

3

 CYP 4 - Primary School (after-schools) Active Diversity and Good Relations Programme  CYP 5 - Community Based Sports and Good Relations Programme  BPR 1 - Personal Development and Training Programme  BPR 4f - Community Based Arts Programme

The tenders received by the closing date of 14 August 2017 were reviewed and scored in line with the Council’s procurement policy between 23 August 2017 and 30 August 2017. The Officers’ recommendations had been reviewed by SEUPB and final recommendations for the appointment of delivery agents was detailed at Item 8 on the agenda.

Correspondence was received on 14th August 2017 which detailed the procedure for Local Action Plan Applications underspends (Item 6c). The correspondence outlined the underspends across the Local Authority Areas and showed that ANDBC had an underspend as follows – CYP £150,122 (€177,144) and BPR £21,488 (€21,488). SEUPB were inviting applications from the Local Authorities for their allocated underspends, with applications to be submitted by 18th September 2017. Officers recommendations for underspends were be dealt with under item 7. The Head of Community and Culture informed members that due to local authorities submitting claims via eMS, the system could not process both claims and rebids simultaneously, thus a short extension until 2nd October 2017 had been granted for underspend rebids. Members were informed that the final PEACE IV plan had been posted on the Council’s website. The Head of Community and Culture updated members on planning approval for the Shared Spaces and Services project, which included the installation of leisure equipment at 4 sites across the Borough, namely Holywood, Comber, Portavogie and Portaferry. Due to the size of the Holywood and Comber sites a pre-application community consultation must be carried out in advance of the planning application submission. It was anticipated that pre-application community consultation would commence in September 2017. An update report had been submitted to SEUPB and a new SEUPB Case Officer had been appointed to oversee the delivery of the ANDBC Action Plan and act as liaison officer for the PEACE IV secretariat. SEUPB had also advised that claims could now be submitted for some administrative costs incurred to date.

RECOMMENDED: PEACE IV Partnership notes this report and correspondence. Proposed by Councillor Thompson, seconded by Councillor Smart.

AGREED.

4

7. REPORT ON RECOMMENDATION FOR UNDERSPENDS

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Report on recommendations for Underspend.

The PEACE IV Officer advised members that 2 proposed projects had been removed by SEUPB from the original application for funding. The projects were an Early Years Programme and a Consortia Development programme.

The Officer stated that due to a potential conflict of interest situation, detailed information on the two new proposed programmes could not be provided to the Partnership at this stage, however, the Officer gave members a brief overview of the 2 new programmes.

Children and Young People - £150,122 (€177,144) Officers had undertaken research into the requirements of the new programme and it was proposed that an application be submitted to SEUPB based around the previous application for the Early Year’s programme. The programme would be delivered through organised out of school activities and structured uniformed organisations e.g. Girls Brigade, Scouts.

Building Positive Relations - £18,210 (€21,488) The second proposal related to an underspend in the Building Positive Relations priority to the value of £18,210. It was proposed that a faith based project similar to that delivered under PEACE III should be procured out to an external organisation.

Members noted that the completed reapplications for funding must be submitted no later than Monday 2nd October 2017.

The Chairman, Alderman Angus Carson invited questions from members.

Alderman Irvine asked for a little more detail on the proposed Children and Young Programme. The Officer described the programme as a cross-community, cross- border, promoting diversity and combating racism and sectarianism.

Alderman Gibson also asked for clarity on the rebid deadline dates of 18th September and 2nd October. The Head of Community and Culture confirmed the accuracy of these dates with 2nd October being the new deadline date for the submission of the rebid application for the 2 projects.

RECOMMENDED that the PEACE IV Partnership agrees to submit two rebid applications for funding as follows:  Children and Young People - £150,122  Building Positive Relations - £18,210 and that the reapplications for both projects be submitted to SEUPB by 2nd October 2017.

5

Recommendation proposed by Councillor Smart and seconded by Councillor Thompson.

AGREED.

8. APPOINTMENT OF TENDERS

TABLED: Report on appointment of tenders.

The Chairman, Alderman Carson reminded Members that due to potential conflict of interests, that those members who fell into this category should excuse themselves during this item.

Katy Radford – Social Sector BME Sandra Henderson – Social / Community Sector Alderman Wesley Irvine, and Caroline Woods – Statutory Education Authority left the meeting for the duration of the discussion on tenders.

The Head of Community and Culture gave the Members an overview on the Tender procedure followed by Council Officers in conjunction with a representative from the procurement department. The evaluation panel consisted of the Head of Community and Culture, the PEACE IV Finance Officer and the Assistant PEACE IV Officer along with the Council’s Procurement Officer.

Council received fifteen tenders and there were no late submissions.

Evaluation criteria could be referenced in attached papers (Item 8).

Alderman Gibson sought clarification into the uneven or decimal figures within the scores of the tenders. The Head of Community and Culture stated the reason some scores were not whole numbers was due to the scoring evaluation process, in which cost was assessed last. Alderman Gibson went on to request more information about the scoring process, citing one of the tenders which was a government body and yet scored very low. The Head of Community and Culture stated she could not go into further detail regarding why some scores were low or high, however, Tenderers would be informed of their result and that feedback could be requested.

The Chairman reminded members that there was no right of appeal within this tender procedure.

Alderman Gibson pointed out that one company was successful under two projects and he sought assurance that the secretariat was confident of the company’s capacity to deliver both projects at once. The Head of Community and Culture stated that SEUPB had inspected the recommendations of tenders from Council and the

6

initial meetings with successful tenders would provide an opportunity to gain more information regarding capacity to deliver.

Alderman McDowell enquired as to project costs. The Head of Community and Culture explained the process used in the costing for tenders, in that a fixed budget was advertised and those who came in equal or under that budget were considered with those who came in over the budget were not. She went on to state that there was a shortfall due to this process and this would be reported back once final figures were available.

Alderman McDowell went on to enquire if there would be a report on the spend of each tender. The Head of Community and Culture stated that spend would be monitored quarterly with meetings to ensure the Tenderers met key targets and numbers and that financial reports would also be provided.

Councillor Smart enquired about where accountability lay, in the case where a contractor failed to meet requirements, would liability rest with SEUPB, the PEACE IV Partnership or Council. The Head of Community and Culture stated that SEUPB based their decision on the recommendations of the PEACE IV officers who carried out the tender assessment, so accountability would lie with Council.

Shelia Bailie stated she had faith in the Council’s procurement procedure, but robust monitoring systems should be put in place to ensure delivery agents met targets, outputs and results.

Alderman Gibson raised question of a “pass mark” within the tender process, and implementation of a threshold. The Head of Community and Culture stated that a threshold was not put in place during this Tender process, but could be implemented in the next batch of tenders.

The Chairman brought members back to the topic of PEACE Champions for each project, stating that he believed it was a great opportunity for members to get deeper insight, understanding and involvement on the projects they were funding.

The question of accountability was raised again, as to whether PEACE Champions would be held to account or would issues come back to the Partnership forum. The Head of Community and Culture stated that any issues would be raised with the Partnership.

Alderman McDowell requested if members could be informed of meetings with contractors to go along to site visits even if they do not choose to champion the project. The Head of Community and Culture encouraged members to do so.

Champions volunteered for the following projects: -

Capacity Building and Youth Leadership Programme (CYP1)

7

 Katy Radford – Social BME  Councillor Eddie Thompson

Community Based Arts Programme (BPR4F)  Kelvin Doherty – Youth Justice Agency  Alderman Robert Gibson

Cross Community Based Sports and GR Programme (CYP5)  Owen Brady – NI Housing Executive  Councillor Richard Smart

Personal Development and Training Programme (BPR1)  Dorothy Beattie – Social - Older People  Alderman Wesley Irvine

Primary School Active Diversity Multi Sports and Gr Programme (CYP4)  Shelia Bailie – Social Voluntary  Ralston Perera – South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust

The nomination of members as PEACE Champions was proposed by the Vice-Chair Janette McNulty and seconded by Councillor Smart.

AGREED. 9. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

The Chair asked members for items of any other Business.

The PEACE IV Officer updated members on the PEACE IV managers meeting held on 7 September 2017, stating partnership training and launch events were scheduled in other areas. A report would be brought back to next partnership meeting on a launch for the Ards and North Down Borough Council PEACE IV Programme.

The Vice-chair, Janette McNulty proposed, seconded by Councillor Smart that papers to be discussed at Partnership meetings be sent out to members as soon as Council receives them, to allow members time to review and digest.

AGREED.

10. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

The Chair, Alderman Carson advised Members that the next Partnership meeting would be held on Thursday 19th October at 4pm in Londonderry Park, Newtownards.

Alderman McDowell recorded apologies for this meeting.

8

The Chair thanked everyone for attending.

NOTED.

The meeting terminated at 5.10pm

9

ARDS and NORTH DOWN BOROUGH COUNCIL PEACE IV PARTNERSHIP Thursday 19 October 2017

A meeting of the Ards and North Down Borough Council PEACE IV Partnership was held in the Londonderry Park, Newtownards at 4:00pm on the above date.

Present: In the Chair: Alderman Angus Carson

Elected Members: Alderman Robert Gibson Alderman Wesley Irvine Alderman Bill Keery Alderman Alan McDowell Councillor Richard Smart Councillor Gavin Walker Councillor Alan Leslie

Statutory Agencies Inspector David Lindsay in place of Chief Inspector Gerry McGrath - Police Service of NI Caroline Woods - Education Authority Owen Brady – NI Housing Executive Kelvin Doherty – Youth Justice Agency Ester Miller in place of Stephen Dallas of Education Authority

Social Partners Sheila Bailie – Voluntary Sector Sandra Henderson – Community Sector Dorothy Beattie - Older Peoples Sector Janette McNulty - Trade Union (Vice Chair) Katy Radford – BME Sector Pete Wray - Younger Peoples Sector Alison Blayney - Women’s Sector

Officers in Attendance Mr Graeme Bannister (Director of Community & Wellbeing) Mrs Nicola Dorrian (External Funding Manager) Mrs Gillian McCready (PEACE IV Officer) Mrs Linda Bradshaw (PEACE IV Finance Officer) Miss Colette Kelly (Assistant PEACE IV Officer) Mr Jonathan Bell (PEACE IV / Community Development Administrator)

1

1. WELCOME FROM THE CHAIR

The Chair, Alderman Angus Carson thanked everyone for attending.

NOTED. 2. APOLOGIES

Apologies for inability to attend were received from Alderman McDowell, Councillor Thompson, Stephen Dallas (Education Authority), Ralston Perera (Health Trust), Gerry McGrath (PSNI), Paul Walsh (South Eastern Regional College) and Leigh Nelson (Business Sector). NOTED.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

The Chairman, Alderman Angus Carson invited any declarations of interest on the agenda. He also advised that declarations of interest could also be raised throughout the meeting.

Sandra Henderson and Alison Blayney declared conflict of interest in item 5 - Report on Delivery Agent appointment.

NOTED.

4. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY 14 September 2017

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Copy of the minutes of the PEACE IV Partnership Meeting held on Thursday 14 September 2017.

No matters arising.

RECOMMENDED that the Partnership agree the minutes of the meeting held on 14 September 2017.

It was proposed by Owen Brady and seconded by Dorothy Beattie that the minutes be adopted. AGREED.

5. REPORT ON DELIVERY AGENT APPOINTMENT

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Report on Delivery Agent Appointment.

Sandra Henderson and Alison Blayney declared an interest and excused themselves from the room for this item.

2

The Chairman Alderman Carson invited the PEACE IV Officer to speak on the report. She stated that Officers and PEACE IV Champions had met with each of the appointed Delivery Agents and permission to start had been issued to all 5 Programmes: - CYP1, BPR4F, CYP5, BPR1 and CYP4.

The PEACE IV Officer went on to report that during these meetings permission to start requirements, communication, PR, financial claims and profile of expenditure were discussed. Delivery Agents were also informed that they would be provided with monitoring returns, a service level agreement and further information on Council Officers and or local groups that would be interested in participating in the PEACE IV programme.

The Officer informed members that a photocall to promote the programmes and encourage participants had been arranged for 24th October 2017.

The Officer stated that a meeting had been arranged with the NI Youth Forum, who are the Delivery Agents for the Capacity Building and Youth Leadership Programme, this meeting would help ensure complementarity with the work of the Education Authority Youth Service and Bangor Alternatives.

No questions were raised.

RECOMMENDED: The PEACE IV Partnership notes this report.

Proposed by Councillor Smart and seconded by Alderman Robert Gibson the recommendation be agreed.

AGREED.

6. UPDATE REPORT ON PEACE IV PROGRAMME

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Update report on PEACE IV Programme and correspondence from SEUPB.

The PEACE IV Officer informed members that since previous meeting on 14th September 2017 a further 3 Tenders were issued, under the same procurement guidelines as the previous 5.

On 14th September 2017, the PEACE IV Secretariat advertised three public tenders on e-tendersNI and e-tendersIreland for the delivery of the 3 programmes under Building Positive Relations:  BPR 4a – Intercultural Theatre Programme  BPR 4b – Cross Border Intercultural Puppetry Project  BPR 4c – Genealogy and Story Telling Project.

3

The Officer stated Tender submission deadline was 13th October 2017 and they would be scored between the 27th and 31st October 2017. A report with approved recommendations would be presented to members for the next Partnership meeting on 16th November 2017.

The PEACE IV Officer updated members on the current status of the Shared Spaces and Services project, which included the installation of leisure equipment at 4 sites across the borough; Holywood, Comber, Portavogie and Portaferry. The sites were chosen following the public consultation exercise in 2016 and met criteria required by SEUPB including being of a contested nature , land ownership and could be delivered within timeframe. Consideration was given to Village and Town plans alongside consulting with various external organisations. She stated that since the application was submitted to SEUPB, a number of meetings had taken place on an Officer level and an informal working group had been formed to include expertise from a variety of Council departments including finance, parks, leisure, communications and capital projects.

The Officer informed members that due to the size of 2 sites – Comber and Holywood, a Pre-application community consultation (PACC) was required in advance of the submission of a planning application. In accordance with Planning Act (Northern Ireland 2011) a Proposal of Application Notice had been submitted to the Planners by Officers. She informed members that 2 Public consultation events had been arranged for the following dates and locations:

 Wednesday 25th October 2017 from 3-8pm in Redburn Community Centre, Holywood  Thursday 26th October 2017 from 3-8pm in Comber Community Centre

Public notices would be placed in local press and events advertised on the Council’s social media platforms and on the website. Invitations would be issued to local Community groups. Discussions with the Community Developments Officers for that area had commenced. A leaflet drop had been carried out in both locations, with local residents invited to attend.

Members were informed that a cross section of Officers would be in attendance on both dates, from various departments that would be helpful to answer queries. Public opinion and suggestions would be sought on these dates with plans also made available on the Council website for comment. A final PACC report would be complied by Officers to inform the formal planning permission for the design and build contract.

Shelia Bailie (Social Sector) requested clarity on the reasoning for Public Consultation and whether such would be required for the Portaferry and Portavogie sites, with the Chair enquiring if it was mandatory. The Officer stated it was mandatory due to the size of the 2 locations, but it was not required for Portaferry and Portavogie.

4

Alderman Gibson enquired if planners would be attending the public consultations. He was informed that as the planners would be reviewing the cases, they could not. He also raised concern over time restraints with planning consultation and the normal length of time to receive planning permission.

The External Funding Manager informed members that a representative from planning attended the Shared Spaces and Services working group thus could not attend the consultation events, however had assured Officers that application could be fast- tracked.

Members were informed that the 12-week consultation had already begun and the 4 sites would be running concurrently, with Portaferry and Portavogie consultations taking place by the end of the year.

Owen Brady (NI Housing Executive) raised concerns around the Comber site, stating he was aware of a range of different opinions regarding the project.

RECOMMENDED: PEACE IV Partnership notes this report and correspondence. Recommendation was proposed by Sandra Henderson and seconded by Alderman Wesley Irvine. NOTED.

7. REPORT ON MEETING DATES AND VENUES

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Report on recommendations for meeting dates and venues.

The PEACE IV Officer reminded members that during the training day on 29th June 2017 it was suggested that venues for meetings be rotated. She asked the members to consider a list of dates from January 2018 to December 2018 and put forward any suggestions on alternative venues.

The Chair Alderman Carson opened floor for suggestions with Ballywalter, Comber, Donaghadee and Portaferry nominated as possible venues.

Day Date Time Venue Thursday 18th January 2018 4.00 pm Londonderry Park Thursday 15th March 2018 4.00 pm Signal Centre, Bangor Thursday 24th May 2018 4.00 pm TBC Thursday 9th August 2018 4.00 pm TBC Thursday 6th September 2018 4.00 pm TBC Thursday 15th November 2018 4.00 pm TBC

5

RECOMMENDED: It is recommended that the PEACE IV Partnership agrees the schedule of meetings for 2018 and suggested venue locations.

Recommendation proposed by Alderman Gibson and seconded by Councillor Smart.

AGREED.

8. REPORT ON LAUNCH OF PEACE IV PROGRAMME

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Report on Launch of PEACE IV Programme

Members were advised at previous meeting on 14th September 2017, arrangements were being made for a PEACE IV Programme Launch event. This was to promote and advertise the programme, to encourage participants for the various projects and to maximise the potential impact of the PEACE IV Plan.

It was recommended that the launch event is held in January 2018 in a local hotel or council venue with adequate capacity, parking and access. In addition to all Partnership members attending, invitations will be issued to SEUPB, Ards and North Down Council Members and officers, all Delivery Agents and local community groups. Light refreshments will be provided and the local media invited along with a number of press releases to promote programme.

RECOMMENDED: The PEACE IV Partnership agrees to proceed with a launch event in January 2018.

NOTED. 9. REPORT ON MONITORING

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Report on Monitoring Reports

As members were aware, the Delivery Agents are required to document the results of each project. These objectives included a range of qualitative or attitudinal measurements, due to the nature of these indicators a baseline would be attained upon commencement of each project and measured against the resulting monitoring. The PEACE IV Officer proceeded to outline the process of monitoring, stating monthly monitoring would first be assessed by the Finance Monitoring sub-group before being brought to the full partnership for consideration. The Finance Monitoring sub-group was convened in February 2017 and membership is as follows:

6

Elected Members Alderman Angus Carson Alderman Bill Keery Alderman Robert Gibson Councillor Eddie Thompson Statutory agencies Gerry McGrath Ralston Perera Owen Brady Social Partners Pete Wray Janette McNulty

Members were advised that assistance was sought from Officers in compliance and statistics to develop the monitoring form (attached in papers). This will allow the Partnership to monitor progress and identify potential issues from an early stage. This information is required to be reported to SEUPB and is reflective of the commitments provided in the application to SEUPB, the requirement of the output indicator guidance and requirements of the eMS system.

A brief discussion into the difficulties of the qualitative questions included within monitoring forms, with concerns raised over the vagueness of terminology.

RECOMMENDED: The PEACE IV Partnership agrees the project monitoring forms.

Recommendation proposed by Alderman Robert Gibson and seconded by Sandra Henderson.

AGREED.

10. FINANCIAL UPDATE

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Report on Financial Update

The PEACE IV Finance Officer advised members that the Secretariat had received an invitation from SEUPB to submit any retrospective claims in which expenditure had occurred. She stated to date only 8 claims covering 3 periods had been submitted. This was due to conflicting issues experienced by the eMS system. Members were made aware in a previous meeting on 14th September that as a result of this SEUPB had offered an extension until 5th November for submissions of rebids.

The PEACE IV Finance Officer stated a 50% verification sample had been received for the first two active periods and once these claims have been verified, the resultant error rate will dictate the sample sizes of future claims.

7

A brief discussion ensued regarding the status of previous mileage claims and clarification on procedure.

The Officer continued on to give the members an update on expenditure profile forecasting from the Delivery Agents. This information would assist the secretariat in the level of programme of delivery and the reimbursement of claims together with fulfilling the requirements from SEUPB. She stated the secretariat was currently waiting on more information from some Delivery Agents.

RECOMMENDED: It is recommended that the PEACE IV Partnership notes the above financial update.

NOTED. 11. PEACE IV CHAMPIONS

PREVIOUSLY CIRCULATED: Report on PEACE IV Champions

The PEACE IV Officer reminded members of the decision to appoint two PEACE IV Champions to each of the projects during training day on 29th June 2017. Ten members were appointed as Champions to the five awarded tenders.

The Officer went on to discuss the role of the PEACE IV Champions and stated following the meeting, further consideration had been given regarding the roles and responsibilities of the Champions. A draft Terms of Reference was given to Members for consideration (Attached in papers).

Members were provided with a summary of the PEACE IV Programmes, Delivery Agents, current appointed Champions vacancies. The Officer asked Members to consider the list of available Projects and to contact the Secretariat by Friday 3rd November 2017 to indicate which programme they would prefer to Champion.

Members were advised they could change which project they wished to Champion at this stage and there were 19 Projects which each required up to 2 Champions.

RECOMMENDED: The PEACE IV Partnership agrees the attached Terms of Reference for the PEACE IV Champions and Members contact the secretariat by 3rd November 2017 to indicate their preferred choice of programme they wish to Champion.

NOTED.

12. ANY OTHER BUSINESS

None.

8

13. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

The Chair, Alderman Carson advised Members that the next Partnership meeting would be held on Thursday 16th November at 4pm in Londonderry Park, Newtownards.

The Chair thanked everyone for attending.

The meeting terminated at 4:40pm

9

Unclassified

ITEM 8

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Community and Wellbeing

Date of Meeting 17 January 2018

Responsible Director Director of Community and Wellbeing

Responsible Head of Head of Community and Culture Service

Date of Report 15 December 2017

File Reference

Legislation Recreation and Youth Services (NI) Order 1986

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:

Subject Summer Scheme Review

Attachments Annex 1 - ANDBC Summer Scheme Report Annex 2 - Breezemount Summer Scheme

Members will be aware that a number of Council Service Units are involved in delivering summer activities across the Borough. These include Community Development Summer Schemes, Leisure schemes and Arts and Heritage schemes. A cross Council working Group has been set up to look at way of sharing resources and coordinating the planning of the schemes. This work is ongoing and is developing collaborative ways of working more efficiently across council for 2018. In addition, Members will be aware that there is a myriad of summer schemes run by communities, businesses and local churches. The Councils Community Development Summer Schemes are delivered to specifically target areas of social need where a need and demand has been identified

The Community Development Unit has completed a review of the Council’s Community Development Summer Scheme programme 2017 (Annex 1). These Council led Summer Schemes were delivered during a 3-week period from 24 July 2017 to 11 August 2017 across 6 locations within the Borough. The review includes details participant numbers and costs across the entire scheme and also highlights the

Page 1 of 2

Unclassified importance of the Council run summer schemes to families in the borough. Based on the feedback from officers, parents/guardians and children the review includes details of “what worked well” and “what could have been delivered better”.

As Members will be aware, it was previously agreed by Council that a Community led Summer Scheme would be supported by Council, as a pilot scheme in Breezemount in 2017. An evaluation of the community led Summer Scheme in Breezemount estate delivered by local volunteers, is attached (Annex 2). The evaluation, was submitted by North Down Community Network on behalf of Breezemount Community Association. Council support comprised of a grant of £950 awarded through the Community Development Grants Scheme, plus a number of additional discounts of 50% on normal Council hire charges for the use of; the Councils Community Centre and pitches and room hire at Londonderry Park, totalling £464. Therefore, the total amount of financial support awarded to the community led Summer Scheme in Breezemount was £1414. It should be noted that this amount does not include the cost of staff time in relation to support and administration.

There has been some preliminary consultation with the 3 Networks with regard to the Council potentially supporting a number of Community led Summer Schemes, similar to the pilot supported in Breezemount. The 3 Networks believe there is appetite within communities to run community led Summer Schemes were a need and demand is identified. It is proposed that further consultation is carried out with the Networks and Community Groups, particularly along the Peninsula where there is a perceived lack of summer provision. This consultation will inform a further report to Council in February 2018, regarding potential support for community led summer schemes.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council notes this report.

Page 2 of 2

ANNEX 1

ARDS AND NORTH DOWN SUMMER SCHEME EVALUATION 2017

Background to Summer Schemes

Children are born with the same rights as all fully developed humans, with an additional number of rights due to their vulnerability. These rights are contained within the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) adopted by the UK Government in 1992. Among the 54 articles contained in the convention is the child’s right to play and engage in recreational, artistic, leisure and cultural activities. Play is a key component to the development and well-being of each child. By providing play schemes, the Council is contributing towards this duty.

The Council is also contributing towards its statutory duty under the Recreation & Youth Service (NI) Order, 1986, by providing community development services, working with independent groups and organisations, as well as developing a range of community based programmes based on need and targeting areas which are highest on NIMDM.

Summer Schemes are a highly valued community development service. The Summer Scheme programme brings together key elements to allow for structured and unstructured play. Physical, social, cognitive and emotional elements form the basis of the programme which is provided within a range of safe, risk assessed environment.

Structure of schemes

Summer Scheme provision across the Borough continues to focus on areas of high deprivation in Kilcooley, Rathgill and Redburn, Glen, West Winds and Portaferry. Changes in programing were made to maximise the spread and uptake of the provision, these included:  Timescale: 3-week delivery across all 6 sites for the period 24 July-11 August 2017.  Child numbers varied according to the space available in buildings at each location. The following numbers reflect the maximum number of child places available at each location: Rathgill 80 children per day Kilcooley 70 children per day Redburn 64 children per day West Winds 48 children per day Glen 32 children per day Portaferry 29 children per day  Daily sessions returned to a 6-hour daily format  Reduced Staffing levels were required due to the staggered child places available across the Borough  Budget allocation of £93K was allocated to the 2017 Summer Scheme programme

Programme planning, content and structure

Planning: Summer Scheme programmes are designed to maximise the potential for children to play. Programmes are planned with children’s age and developmental stage in mind, with all the key components of play considered and delivered within the resources available. Adhering to good practice guidelines, staff continuously engage with parent/guardians and children to ensure high quality, progressive and relevant programmes. An example of a junior and senior summer scheme program can be found at Appendix 1A & 1B.

Following on from last year, the CD team collectively developed 6 programs, procured goods and services, recruited staff and engaged at a cross departmental level to achieve a consistent and value for money service for families.

The Summer Scheme Working Group allowed for a joint marketing approach for all summer activities, developed the basis for more collaborative opportunities to deliver on KPI’s across the Directorate and identified a number of more joined up opportunities for future work e.g. joint training and more creative ways of sharing resources across Departments.

Content / Activities: Programme content ensured a range of physical, creative, intellectual, educational and free play elements to ensure participation, social, cultural and intellectual enrichment.

The Summer Scheme programme offers a wide range of choice from onsite activities, such as arts & crafts, games, cooking, dancing and off site trips / visits which included visiting activity centres such as W5, Mount Stewart, Snakes & ladders soft play centre, play parks etc.

The range of activities ensured there is a large element of choice within programmes. It is a vital part of the play experience for children to have choice, learn new skills and hone existing ones, therefore programmes are designed to be age and stage of development appropriate.

This fits well within the 5 Steps to Wellbeing: feeling good and functioning well is what we also hope to achieve through Summer Play Schemes. Building positive relationships, having control over decisions making and having a sense of purpose are all important elements of wellbeing. The 5 key actions of wellbeing in summer scheme are: Connect: children, parents/guardians and staff are connecting with other individuals from a range of socio-economic backgrounds – building and developing social networks. These networks help support and enrich us every day. Be Active: physical activity is associated with greater sense of wellness and reduces anxiety and depression. In delivering and encouraging physical play, dance and drama and utilising the outdoors, weather permitting, assists with this feeling of wellness. Take Notice: being aware and curious about the environment and savouring and taking time to reflect on new experiences helps individuals appreciate and evaluate what matters. The Summer Play Scheme offers new experiences for children to participate in with a range of opportunities offered through the programme and trips. Keep Learning: trying something new or rediscovering an old interest builds confidence. The programme provides opportunity to learn new skills and to build on old ones. Building self-esteem and confidence: sharing one’s own skills, developing social interaction leading to a more active life. All of this feeds the experience of the children attending the schemes, parents bringing their children along and the staff team who are all interacting with each other. Giving: one of the most satisfying experiences we can have, it induces a neurological response which makes us feel good. The young volunteers give their time and in turn gain a range of skills and learn what it is like to have some responsibility for delivering supervised tasks. It also, and vitally, offers these young people opportunities to be excellent role models to younger children.

Duration and Structure: A full day programme enabled a more robust programme of trips to be employed. 15 days x 6 hour daily programme was available at all locations. Largely the Council response is the result of parents/guardians who indicated that half day sessions were less impactful for their children. A full day format enabled the achievement of a better quality experience for children, better opportunities to develop children’s skills and social networks and more value for money.

Age groups: Children who have completed Primary 1 and completed Primary 7 age groups continue to be the standard entry point. These children are further split into two age groups for delivery: Juniors aged 5-7 years and Seniors aged 8-11 years. The Senior age group continues to attract a slightly lower number of children.

Staffing levels: Staffing levels reflects AND Safeguarding Children Policy recommended minimum adult/child ratio of 1:8. Team sizes varied according to the maximum number of child places available (Table 1). This was determined by the space available at each Council community/sports centre.

Table 1 Site/Staff structure/attendance

Centre Maximum Staff compliment Actual attendance/ Number of actual registered Places places Available Ald George 80 children I Coordinator WK 1 79/84 Green CC 2 Leaders In Charge WK 2 74/82 8 Summer Scheme WK 3 64/81 Workers Kilcooley CC 70 children I Coordinator WK 1 63/72 2 Leaders In Charge WK 2 62/72 7 Summer Scheme WK 3 60/72 Workers Redburn CC 64 children I Coordinator WK 1 50/61 2 Leaders In Charge WK 2 54/59 6 Summer Scheme WK 3 55/56 Workers West Winds 48 children I Coordinator WK 1 39/40 CC 2 Leaders In Charge WK 2 31/39 4 Summer Scheme WK 3 25/36 Workers Glen CC 32 children I Coordinator WK 1 24/29 2 Leaders In Charge WK 2 20/28 2 Summer Scheme WK 3 13/20 Workers Portaferry 29 children 1 Coordinator WK 1 25/29 Sports 2 leaders in Charge WK 2 27/29 Centre 2 Summer Scheme WK 3 19/29 Workers

Operationally, in order that teams have a consistent skills base across all the sites, officers attempted to place regular staff and returning seasonal staff across all the sites. The remaining summer scheme team was recruited through Agency. Community Development Officers continue to manage all the sites throughout the programme to ensure consistency, provide support and direction to staff, act as trouble shooters, ensure policies and procedures are employed correctly and generally ensure smooth delivery.

Participation, attendance and registration

3920 child opportunities were delivered during the 3-week summer scheme across 6 sites, with an average daily attendance of 43 across all 6 sites. Oversubscription to summer scheme has subsided over the past two years. Last year’s restructuring did not achieve the desired result of increasing overall numbers; however, officers did deliver the scheme on three new sites which were well received.

Table 1 shows the 2017 average weekly attendance at each location as well as the actual numbers registered at each scheme. It should also be noted that whilst children were registered on schemes, they did not necessarily attend each day resulting in differing numbers.

On the whole, summer scheme registration and attendance remains in higher demand in Bangor and Holywood, while it remains lower in Ards and Portaferry. Participation levels are not as high as anticipated at the Glen site in particular. Feedback from parents/guardians and children alike were very positive (Appendix 2 & 3) There are quite a number of opportunities available to families in the immediate vicinity e.g. Ards LC which is adjacent to the community, Bees Knees childcare facility which is next door, Church summer opportunities and the Arts Centre at Conway Square not far away. Relocation of this scheme to the head of the peninsula should be considered.

Similarly, Portaferry numbers remained low, even though feedback was positive with both parent/guardian as well as children (Appendix 2); there are many sports and community summer opportunities available in the town which may impact on the CD scheme.

Registration is still problematic regarding timing (Appendix 2), access and the open ended nature of the process; however, in 2018 officers anticipate having a summer scheme registration day at specific sites, with one day per week allocated at each site for an open registration period of 4 weeks. This will help prevent duplication and greatly help to develop good working relationships with families and communities on site.

Budget and Costs

The CD Summer Scheme is highly subsidised and targeted in areas of social and economic deprivation. It has attracted high demand as it is also open to all who live in the Borough on a first come first served basis. Summer scheme costs included staff costs, overheads, hall hire, programme and transport costs

The total Summer Scheme budget (2017) was £93,000 and the income generated over the 6 sites was £16,750, therefore the net cost of the Council led summer scheme was £76,250.

The cost to parents per child, per week are: £25.00 at full rate or £12.50 at concessionary rate. However, the real cost to Council, based on scheme uptake per week was £97.25 per place.

Parent/guardians commented, in the customer satisfaction survey, on the excellent value for money the scheme represented (Appendix 2)

Volunteer Opportunities

Junior volunteers are an invaluable asset to summer scheme. Summer scheme offers the opportunity for junior volunteers to develop skills and abilities. In 2017 eight Junior Volunteers were incorporated into teams at Redburn and Kilcooley CC’s. These young people (under 18) have demonstrated commitment to volunteering at the various AND children’s and youth projects throughout the year.

This is a reciprocated quality learning opportunity for young people; being a good role model for younger children attending the scheme, taking responsibility for small tasks which do not involve supervising children e.g. helping with break time preparation, setting up equipment for activities, participating in activities and generally shadowing the adult team members.

Monitoring and Evaluation

At the end of each scheme children and parent/guardians were asked to complete a short survey to gauge how they felt summer scheme went. The survey also asked parent to comment on improvements for future schemes. (Appendices 2 – 4) Satisfaction rates were high for both children and parental responses.

What worked well?

The Summer Scheme programme was regarded by parents as fun, entertaining, creative and educational as, confirmed by the high levels of satisfaction expressed by parents/guardians

The community development staff were helpful and courteous.

Based on feedback from the children the highest number of “smiles” were awarded to trips to play parks (63.83%), followed by sports activities (62%), Arts and Crafts activities (61.83) and trips to the cinema (61%)

What could have been delivered better?

Only 63% of parents strongly agreed that the summer scheme registration process was easily understood and reasonably straight forward. Alternative methods of registration should be considered.

Although participant numbers had increased from 2016 further consideration needs to be given to running schemes at certain sites were numbers low, e.g. the Glen and Portaferry where competing summer provision is available.

Volunteering opportunities should be promoted for each scheme.

Better promotion of the scheme.

CONCLUSION

Overall the community based Summer Scheme programme was well received by children and parents/guardians. The programme is regarded as a highly valued service by the wider community. It represents good value for money for parents/guardians, due to the high level of Council subsidy.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1A – Sample Summer Scheme Programme

Juniors 5-8 Years Old 2017 24TH JULY 24TH JULY – 31ST JULY – 31ST JULY – 7TH AUG – 7TH AUG – – 28TH 28TH JULY 4TH AUG 4TH AUG 11TH AUG 11TH AUG JULY DAY WEEK 1 WEEK 1 WEEK 2 WEEK 2 WEEK 3 WEEK 3 MORNING AFTERNOON MORNING AFTERNOON MORNING AFTERNOON MONDAY RULES & TEAMS STORMONT BUILD ME GO FLY MT STEWART MT AND PLAY PARK A? A KITE ‘THE MAGIC STEWART ‘GETTING (SCRAP INK POT’ TO KNOW ART YOU’ PROJECT TUESDAY ANTI PLAYGROUND MILLISLE & BEACH BULLYING GAMES PLAY PARK GAMES DODGEBALL GAMES POSTER (HIDDEN MINE SUPER DERBY FROM THE DESIGN CHALLENGE) SUMMER SOGGY ‘TITANIC’ SCHEME ROUNDERS CHALLENGE 4,5 WEDNESDAY W5 W5 PARTY BIKE/HOME CRAWFORDSBURN SUMMER ANIMALS SAFETY SCHEME BEACH CHALLENGE 8,9,10

THURSDAY ARC 21 TEAM MESSING SNAKES N WALLED DISCO GAMES ABOUT WITH LADDERS GARDEN ALICES PARTY PARTY (SPORTS BUBBLES SUMMER FOOD GAMES D) AND PAINT SCHEME MAD HATTER TOP DANCE CHALLENGE HATS & CHESHIRE CHALLANGE 6,7 CAT BISCUITS FRIDAY DELAMONT TEDDY DELAMONT & BEARS PICNIC WATER WATER CINEMA ‘THAT’S ALL (OPTIONAL DRESS FOR ROCKET OLYMPICS FOLKS’ FANCY BEARS) CHALLANGE SUMMER SUMMER CHALLENGE DEBRIEF SCHEME 1,2,3

APPENDICES

Appendix 1:B – Sample Summer Scheme Programme

Seniors 9-12 Years Old 2017 24TH JULY – 24TH JULY – 31ST JULY – 31ST JULY – 4TH 7TH AUGUST – 11TH 7TH AUGUST 28TH JULY 28TH JULY 4TH AUGUST AUGUST AUGUST – 11TH AUGUST DAY WEEK 1 WEEK 1 WEEK 2 WEEK 2 WEEK 3 WEEK 3 MORNING AFTERNOON MORNING AFTERNOON MORNING AFTERNOON

MONDAY STORMONT RULES & MILLISLE & BEACH BUILD ME A? GO FLY A PLAY PARK TEAMS AND PLAY PARK GAMESSUPER SCRAP ART KITE ‘GETTING TO SOGGY PROJECT KNOW YOU’ ROUNDERS SUMMER SCHEME CHALLENGE 4,5

TUESDAY R.A.D.A.R R.A.D.A.R WATER WATER MT. STEWART MT. ROCKET OLYMPICS ‘THE MAGIC STEWART CHALLENGE (SEE FILE) INK POT’

ANTI WEDNESDAY BULLYING PLAYGROUND LADY ECO TRAIL ARC 21 GAMES THEMED GAMES DIXONS ALICES PARTY FROM THE CRAFT (HIDDEN MINE PARK FOOD TITANIC (PLAY CHALLENGE) MAD HATTER TOP RESOURCE) SUMMER CHALLENGE HATS & CHESHIRE SCHEME 6,7,8 CAT BISCUITS

THURSDAY DELAMONT DELAMONT PARTY HOME CRAWFORDSBURN BEACH OUT DOOR PLAY PARK ANIMALS SAFETY/DODGE GYM BALL SUMMER SCHEME CHALLENGE SUMMER CHALLENGE 9,10 SCHEME 1,2,3

FRIDAY & TEAM PLAY PARK W5 W5 CINEMA ‘THAT’S ALL GAMES FOLKS’ SUMMER DEBRIEF

Appendix 2 - Parents Feedback

Parent/Guardian evaluation responses

Parent/Guardian (P/G’s) responses were extremely positive, ranging between strongly agree and agree for most questions posed.

Registration: Registration attracted positive comments ranking as average 63% strongly agree, Information and the registration process were both reported as good, however, the take up of the Information Booklet varied. This was due, in the main, to the wide range of points where registration was available from, not all of which had the required pack of information available. It is proposed that registration take place on a prescribed day, as is the usual practice, and is followed up by a series of dates/venues to be available within a specific timeframe.

Programming: P/G’s ranked 79% strongly agree and 16% agree that the programme was fun, entertaining, creative and educational. Respondents agreed that the program was well organised and delivered but some noted that trips could be improved as there were a preponderance of trips to beaches and parks, which some commented they could do themselves for free.

Many P/G’s commented on the excellent value for money the scheme represented.

Better promotion of the schemes was noted as an area for improvement.

Staff competence: High levels of P/G appreciation 78% is recorded on the customer survey. P/G’s highly commended the staff, praising them on their ability to deliver on various levels – range of activities, open communicative teams and coordinators, excellent organisation and execution of activities, “brilliant, amazing, excellent, friendly, lovely” some of the words used to describe the staff. Thanks were expressed by P/G’s across all sites for the entire staff team. This is in keeping with the high standards demanded by the CDU, and P/G’s alike.

Average returns, Parent/Guardian Customer Satisfaction Survey x 6 sites

Forms returned (98)

Strongly Strongly Level of satisfaction Agree Disagree N/A agree Disagree The registration process was easily understood and reasonably straight 63% 25% 2% ---- 0.6% forward? The Parent's Information Booklet was 62% 24% ---- 1% 8% useful? The community development staff were 78% 3% ------1% helpful and courteous? The summer scheme programme was fun, 79% 16% 1% 1% ---- entertaining, creative and educational? My child/children enjoyed the summer 77% 7% 1% ------scheme? Average response 59% 12% 0.6% 0.3% 1.6% APPENDIX 3 - CHILDRENS FEEDBACK - Rating the level of fun / enjoyment of activities

Children’s evaluation responses

A high level of satisfaction was indicated by children in relation to the activities on offer.

The survey offered children the opportunity to record how much they enjoyed 9 areas of activities. A large number of children enjoyed all activities on offer although some were discerning in their responses.

Significantly, when asked what children would like to have in the next scheme they asked for a range of activities which could not be supported due the lowered allocation of program budget. Activities such as: ice bowl, museum, trampolining, 10 pin bowling, zoo, airtastic, swimming, horse-riding to name but a few. Most of the venues children indicated they would like to visit were medium to high value in cost.

Children’s Average satisfaction rate x 6 sites Forms returned (232)

Level of 1 X 2 X  3 X  4 X  5 x  Satisfaction 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Activity Play 1.75% 6.78% 10.33% 13.66% 63.83% Parks Beach Activities 8.5% 9.33% 10.33% 6.5% 47% Sports Activity 5.83% 4.95% 9.5% 10% 62%

Games 4.95% 7.16% 11.50% 14.61% 57.8% Arts & 7.5% 4% 7.66% 19.6% 61.83% Craft Animal Visits 3.95% 1.83% 7.33% 8.16% 60% Dancing 10.66% 7.78% 7.16% 6.33% 46% Baking 3.28% 2.5% 8.16% 13.16% 47.83% Cinema .11% 3% 3.5% 7.3% 61%

ANNEX 2

BREEZEMOUNT SUMMER SCHEME 2017

EVALUATION REPORT – BY BREEZEMOUNT COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION History - The Breezemount summer scheme ran and was successfully delivered by local council for over 20+ years. However in May/June 2016 the community association and parents learnt via conversations at the local council run youth club that the summer scheme would not be running anymore. Parents were outraged, disappointed and very saddened, whilst children were devastated. A series of public meetings were called and local council staff and councilors attended as parents shared their disappointment that such a valuable service was been taken away, also that they felt undervalued by not even being contacted or communicated with the council before or after this decision was taken. The local community association, with the support of parents, decided that even though council had removed the summer scheme, it was an essential and basic need for children and families in the local area, and they would deliver it. In 2016 the association asked council to:  Consult and inform local Breezemount Residents of any potential and actual changes to services in the area, long before they ever happened.  Support the association to deliver the summer scheme as volunteers by providing access to the basic facilities such as the local community centre to make the summer scheme deliverable. Also to help with training for volunteers in the form of first aid, safe guarding etc. Council provided training but no reduction in hire costs for the centre, so the association secured other funding to cover this.

The summer scheme was a great success, with demand high, 40 young people (including those with particular needs such as autism etc.) attended the summer scheme and the parents appreciating a 3-week full day summer scheme being delivered at an accessible venue and affordable cost. 2017 SUMMER SCHEME & COUNCIL SUPPORT In 2017 – again the local community association (with the support of parents) hosted a very successful summer scheme with 50 children and young people attending, aged 4-11 years old. This year the support from Ards and North Down Council came in the form of a Community Development grant for £950 and also 50% reduction in hire costs for council venues, specifically Green Road Community centre (Breezemount) and Londonderry Park pitch, room and bouncey castle (Ards). Council also provided valuable training for volunteers in safe guarding, behaviour management and child protection. Breezemount community association believe strongly that in order to make the summer scheme affordable to parents and enable participation, both the grant and the reduction on council venue hire are essential to make the summer scheme deliverable in coming years by community volunteers. The room hire for Green Road was invaluable and proved essential in making the summer scheme possible. However, the 50% reduction in venues such as the Londonderry Park actually ended up costing the association more, as the saving of 50% for 1-hour use of the pitch, room and bouncey castle saved the association £24, however the association had to spend £270 in bus transport costs to get the young people to the venue. 2017 SUMMER SCHEME IMPACT & BENEFITS The following benefits and impact of the summer scheme were noted:  14 volunteers delivered the summer scheme.  Local parents becoming volunteers for the summer.  Enhanced community spirit and cohesion between neighbours.  Young people and older people connecting and positive intergenerational work taking place, and more positive relationship and communication with each other during and after the summer scheme.  Young leaders (18+ yrs) volunteering and building their capacity, skills, experience and employability.  No reporting or complaints about anti-social behaviour over the summer period.  Safety talks give to children and young people so greater road safety knowledge and better personal choices about their own safety.  Increased the careers choices for local volunteers as some are now considering becoming involved in youth work, including changing shifts in their employment to be able to help in the summer scheme.  A genuine commitment by the Breezemount residents, association and parents to working with council in future years to make the summer scheme happen again.

COMMENTS FROM PARENTS AND LOCAL RESIDENTS FOR THE 2017 YEAR

 Very valuable to our community my daughter loved going everyday kept children entertained and off streets  I agree! Eva absolutely loved it and now when she sees the children in the street they say hello to her. she has made lots of friends and its definitely important for the community.  It is an essential event for our community. The kids love it and it also lets them make new friends. The leaders are brilliant at organising all the days out and keeping them entertained during their time  kids love it! they ask all year long when summer scheme starts again. they met so many new friends that they continue to play with. kids grew in confidence so much after this year’s summer scheme. We would hate for it not to be on, long may it last!  May not be a parent of a child but summer scheme is a very important thing in our wee estate! Personally I think it's brought the children in the estate a whole lot closer to each other and made some who may not of cross paths become friends and all play together! The children now never pass me without saying hello or running over and giving me a big hug x  My daughter loves it this was her 2nd year brilliant trips for them and great getting her to mix with other kids as she is quite shy. I hope it’s on again next year .  My 2 girls love it!! Great value for money.me as a working parent can’t afford £17 per day per child for aurora. I also have to pay childminder even though kids aren’t there, so it’s so good that it doesn’t cost a fortune, as my 2 wouldn’t be able to attend. All leaders are great with the kiddies, giving up their free time we are all so grateful for that – you all do a fab job. Xxx ❤  My son absolutely loved it and ALL kids got on so so well. Definitely needed for our community xxx  Most well needed summer scheme run by our community and the kids had a ball xx  Our kids absolutely loved it! Summer scheme is definitely needed in Breezemount xx  It definitely a must for Breezemount community it lets kids get to know each other and learn what community spirit is all about.  My grandchildren all really enjoyed it. They definitely need to keep it up. Unclassified

ITEM 9

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Community and Wellbeing

Date of Meeting 17 January 2018

Responsible Director Director of Community and Wellbeing

Responsible Head of Head of Community and Culture Service

Date of Report 21 December 2017

File Reference CDV26

Legislation Recreation and Youth Services (NI) Order 1986

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:

Subject Royal Wedding Fund

Attachments None

The Council has received correspondence from some members of the local community requesting funding to celebrate the pending Royal Wedding on 19th May 2018. Officers recommend that a similar fund to the Queens 90th birthday celebration, is facilitated, as follows.

Only constituted groups will be eligible to apply to hold celebratory community parties in their local areas. The fund will be publicly advertised and awarded on a first come first served basis, until the fund is depleted. Celebration packs will also be available for those constituted groups who do not receive funding. Groups will not be able to apply for funding and for a celebration pack. It is recommended that the total amount which can be applied for under the scheme is £250 per eligible group and a total budget of £10,000 is ring fenced for the Royal Wedding Fund

Applications must demonstrate the following:  the celebration must be held within the borough  the event must be held between 17-19 May 2018  the event must be held to celebrate the Royal Wedding

Page 1 of 2

Unclassified

 the event must be open and inclusive to the wider community and must benefit the community  the event must demonstrate value for money

The cost of the scheme can be met from the current Community Development budget. It is further proposed that the Director of Community and Wellbeing is given delegated powers to approve the successful awards. This will speed up the allocation of awards to successful applicants. Details of successful awards will be brought to Committee for noting.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council approve the establishment of the Royal Wedding Fund, as detailed in this report and furthermore the Director of Community and Wellbeing is given delegated powers to approve successful applications.

Page 2 of 2

Unclassified

ITEM 10

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Community and Wellbeing

Date of Meeting 17 January 2018

Responsible Director Director of Community and Wellbeing

Responsible Head of Head of Community and Culture Service

Date of Report 21 December 2017

File Reference CDV1

Legislation Recreation and Youth Services (NI) Order 1987

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:

Subject Community Festivals Fund 2018/2019

Attachments

As members will be aware a Notice of Motion was agreed by Council, in November 2017, asking officers to;

“bring back a report which looks to ensure there is equity in the provision of Christmas Festivals, in towns and villages across our Borough…….to look at ways to continue local participation in the preparation and running of these events and to consider how this Council can ensure appropriate funding is made available for this to happen”

The Community Development Unit is currently in discussions with the Tourism Unit to enable a report to be brought back to both the Community and Wellbeing Committee and the Regeneration and Development Committee in February 2018 to recommend to Members how this Notice of Motion can be addressed in detail.

As part of this work, the Community Development Unit (CDU) is currently reviewing its objectives and processes to address the findings of the internal evaluation (2016/17), presented to Council in December 2017. This includes reviewing its application processes relating to the Councils Community Festivals Fund (CFF), in

Page 1 of 3

Unclassified response to feedback received from a survey of applicants involved in the (16/17) grants scheme, of which the majority of the feedback was positive. However, the following areas for improvement were consistently highlighted:

 Applications forms were too long.  Applications forms were too wordy and confusing.  It took too long to receive confirmation.  There should be more than one opportunity to apply for funding in each year.

In 2017/2018 the Councils CFF had a total budget of £86,000 which was awarded to 28 constituted groups to deliver community led festivals across the Borough. The budget was made up of a contribution of £31,800 from the Department of Communities (DfC) and £54,200 from Council. As required by DfC’s terms and conditions the allocation of funding was subject to a competitive grants process, with awards made on the basis of merit. With a limited budget available, only the highest scoring applications were awarded funding.

In 2016/2017 the CFF was split into three categories;  Local Festivals (total grant approx. £36,000); Grants available up to a maximum of £1,500 for local festivals which attract up to 1500 attendees  Neighbourhood Festivals (total grant approx. £10,000); Grants available up to a maximum of £5,000 for festivals which attract up to 5,000 people  Large Festivals; (total grant approx. £40,000) Grants available up to a maximum of £15,000 for three day festivals, attracting a minimum of 5000 attendees

The above categories, enabled a range of community led festivals to be supported, however the most popular category was the Local Festivals. The majority of applications received under the Local Festivals category included community led Christmas Switch On’s in towns and villages across the Borough where the Council provides Christmas trees and lights (with the exception of the three towns of Bangor, Newtownards and Holywood where Christmas Switch On celebrations were delivered by the Tourism Unit). Applications were also received under this category for Summer Festivals, Burns Night and St. Patrick celebrations, Halloween Festivals and commemorations.

In 2017/2018 and subject to the outcome of the rates setting process and formal confirmation of DfC’s contribution to the CFF scheme, it is estimated that the total CFF budget will be £80,000. This includes a reduction of £6,000 on the previous year’s budget to reflect a reduction of 20% from DfC’s contribution, which is likely to be applied. Furthermore, it is recommended that £15,000 is ring fenced within this total budget, to ensure appropriate funding is made available for the provision of Christmas Festivals, in towns and villages across our Borough.

It should be noted that by ring-fencing the proposed amount of £15,000 it will not have a detrimental impact on the overall budget, as approximately £15,000 was normally secured for Christmas Switch On Festivals from previous years CFF budgets. Therefore, subject to Members approval the total budget for the CFF 2018/2019 will be £65,000, and applications from community led Christmas Switch On events will be excluded from applying to this grant pot.

Page 2 of 3

Unclassified

It is further recommended that the total budget for the CFF (2018/2019) is allocated as follows:

 Local Festivals; (total grant approx.£20,000) Grants available up to a maximum of £1,000 for local festivals that attract up to 1500 attendees  Neighbourhood Festivals; (total grant approx. £10,000) Grants available up to a maximum of £4,000 for festivals which attract up to 5,000 people  Large Festivals; (total grant approx. £35,000) Grants available up to a maximum of £15,000 for three day festivals, attracting a minimum of 5000 attendees

The CFF scheme will open for application in February 2018. The CDU recognises the importance of the CFF scheme for communities and how the application process must strike the correct balance in ensuring the process is as fair and ‘user friendly’ as possible, but at the same time ensuring the essential criteria set out by DfC is correctly applied, therefore it is recommended that a more ‘user friendly’ CFF application form, for the Local Festival category is developed, which is still in keeping with the requirements of the DfC guidance and the Council’s Grants policy. The Councils guidance and criteria to support the application form, should also be improved to help applicants completing the application form.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council agrees: 1. The amount of £15,000 is ring-fenced within a total estimated CFF budget of £80,000, to ensure appropriate funding is made available for the provision of Christmas Festivals, in towns and villages across our Borough, as detailed above 2. The CFF budget of £65,000 is allocated across the 3 categories as detailed in this report and applications from community led Christmas Switch On events will be excluded from applying to this grant pot 3. To address the feedback received from the applicant’s survey the improvements to CFF applications forms, guidance and criteria detailed above are actioned before the fund opens for applications in February 2018.

Page 3 of 3

Unclassified

ITEM 11

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Community and Wellbeing

Date of Meeting 17 January 2018

Responsible Director Director of Community and Wellbeing

Responsible Head of Head of Leisure & Amenities Service

Date of Report 11 December 2017

File Reference PCU7

Legislation N/A

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:

Subject Holywood Sport Pitches Update

Attachments None

Background

In the Autumn of 2016, the Council received a report from its consultant examining options available to the Council concerning ways to progress the development of enhanced sports pitches and facilities for Holywood, namely at its sites at Seapark and Spafield. These options were

1. Do nothing 2. Continue with an existing proposed scheme (which increasingly appeared to be undeliverable due to changes over time) 3. Develop Spafield only 4. Develop Seapark only 5. Seek new offers for Kerr Park 6. Consider a new Sports Hub approach for Holywood.

Council in December 2016, as a result of considering the consultants report and recommendations decided on option 6 above.

Page 1 of 2

Unclassified

Work began on developing this option further by writing to all of the sports clubs involved, and convening an in-house project group and appointing a project officer in January 2017 to discuss the practicalities of moving forward with the Councils decision.

A meeting was held with Holywood Rugby Football and Cricket Club on 28th February 2017 to discuss joint plans for delivery, and over a period of weeks communication continued. Similarly, individual meetings and conversations were held with St Pauls GAC and Holywood Football Club in order to progress matters.

Progress up to that point was reported to Council in June 2017. Discussions have also taken place with Sullivan Upper School and at the end of the summer, with Priory College concerning its potential new school development, in order to examine options that would ensure maximising opportunities for sharing facilities across the public sector that provide sports facilities in the area.

Around that time, the clubs reconvened the Holywood Sports Forum, a voluntary collective of all participating clubs, with the objective of developing and proposing agreed concepts that could be examined further. A number of options were discussed, and Council Officers directly engaged with the Forum as part of this process. Following a number of meetings of the Forum, a final concept was agreed between the clubs at a Forum meeting held on 24th October 2017. This concept involves a single shared 3G pitch designed to be suitable for football, Gaelic Games and rugby, and upgraded or replacement clubhouses/pavilion at both Kerr Park and Seapark. The proposal is markedly different and smaller in scale to that previously under consideration, but fully endorsed by all the clubs involved.

In addition, these proposals also have a potential to add value to other strategic developments under consideration such as the greenways project and Borough car parking strategy which will continue to be developed and reported upon.

Presently, the clubs are developing proposals along with Council in relation to assembly and management of land at the Kerr Park and Spafield site, and in parallel to this, options for governance and management of the facilities. It is anticipated that the outcome of this consideration will be completed between January and March 2018. This will allow more detailed designs based on the agreed concept to be drawn up, proposed management agreements to be drafted, and an appropriate economic appraisal to be developed for Councils consideration thereafter.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council notes the progress in relation to development of the Holywood Sports Pitches project.

Page 2 of 2

Appendix1 – Successful Applications EBA Small Grants. Club & Project Date Date Total Funding Eligible Reason Clarification Clarification Start End Outcome / received Assessed Project Requested ineligible Needed Resolved Date Date Award Cost NICCA 1st Dec 8th £2,175 £2,175 Yes Cost per No cost to 3 March 18 Approved 4 full days of 17 December person? participate. 17 March £1,875 coaching 2017 Wet Weather Wet weather 18 (we do not gear Gear to remain fund Bait as ownership? property of club it’s a perishable item) Bangor West 1 Dec 17 8th £2,900.50 £2,900.50 Yes Cost per No cost to Jan 18 31 Approved Explorers December person? participate March £2,900.50 Take 35 2017 confirmed 18 explorers onto water programme. Funding to train staff. Castle Juniors 31st Nov 8th £2,480 £2,480 Yes Cost per No cost to 8 Jan 18 19 Approved FC 17 December person? participate March £1,900 (we 10 week female 2017 confirmed 18 do not fund football publications programme /Marketing costs). Portavogie 21 Nov 8th £3,312 £3,312 Yes Cost per No cost to 1 Jan 18 30 Mar Approved Rangers Youth 2017 December person? participate 18 £2,940 12 week female 2017 confirmed We do not football fund water programme at bottles or New Harbour first aid kits sports facility. Newtownards 29 Nov 8th £2,895 £2,895 Yes Cost per No cost to 8 Jan 18 31 Mar Approved Sea Cadets 2017 December person? participate 18 £2,895 2 volunteers to 2017 confirmed complete a 2 week dinghy residential before delivering water programme. TOTALS £13,762.50 £13,762.50 £12,510.50

Appendix2 Unsuccessful Applications - EBA Small Grants. Club & Project Date Date Total Funding Eligible Reason Clarification Clarification Start End Outcome / received Assessed Project Requested ineligible Needed Resolved Date Date Award Cost Rathgael 1st Dec 8th Not Stated Not Stated No Received after N/A 15 Jan 31 NOT APPROVED Gymnastics 2017 – December (£4,415.36 (£4,415.36 4pm deadline. 18 March Train Coaches 4:18pm 2017 Calculated (Assumption) Equipment 18 to deliver (Deadline by SD) costs exceed inclusive 4pm) £1,000 limit. project. Application Purchase of incomplete, equipment missing total costs, funding costs & Coaching costs North Down & 1st Dec 8th £3,047 £3,047 No No N/A Jan 18 Mar 18 NOT APPROVED Ards Down’s 2017 December Safeguarding Syndrome 2017 policy. Support Group No Designated EBA together Officer. project for No Code of families Conduct. affected by a No reporting disability procedures for complaints TOTALS £7,462.36 £7,462.36 Underspend £17,306-£12,510.50= £4,795.50

Unclassified

ITEM 13

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Community and Wellbeing Committee

Date of Meeting 17 January 2018

Responsible Director Director of Community and Wellbeing

Responsible Head of Head of Leisure and Amenities Service

Date of Report 05 January 2018

File Reference CW94

Legislation Recreation and Youth Service (NI) Order 1986

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Not Applicable ☐

Subject Commonwealth Games- Gold Coast 2018

Attachments NI CWG Team selection list

As Members may be aware the XX1 Commonwealth Games will be held in the Gold Coast Australia from the 4th to 15th April 2018. Over 6,500 team members from up to 70 nations will be taking part.

Members may recall that Ards and North Down Borough Council approved a contribution of £6,000 towards the teams costs in attending this prestigious event which for many of the athletes represents the pinnacle of their sport career.

On 3rd January the Northern Ireland Commonwealth Games Committee announced the team that will represent Northern Ireland at the games. A team of 135 representatives has been selected with 69 athletes competing in 13 sports. (Appendix 1)

Page 1 of 2

Unclassified

Seventeen members of the team, as detailed below are from the Borough of Ards and North Down.

Paul Dennis Aquatics Comber Barry McClements Aquatics Newtownards Jordan Sloan Aquatics Bangor Curtis Coulter Aquatics Newtownards Tom Reynolds Athletics Bangor Ciara Mageean Athletics Portaferry Paul Pollock Athletics Holywood Ben Reynolds Athletics Holywood Anthony Mitchell Cycling Newtownards Rhys McClenaghan Gymnastics Newtownards Wendy Henderson HQ Holywood Simon Martin Lawn Bowls Newtownards Sandra Bailie Lawn Bowls Comber Karen Rollo Netball Newtownards Noleen Lennon Netball Portaferry Rory Hamilton Shooting Comber Julia Webster Support Comber

The seventeen participants will compete in seven different sports as well as representatives from the Borough involved as Team Coaches, Physios and overall Team Management.

Team Officials will be continuing to meet with Council Officials to ensure the support for our athletes is maximised and also recognised both in terms of inclusion in the official games booklet and with attendance of representatives at the official Team NI dinner being held on the 16th February.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council recognises the success of all members of the Northern Ireland Team in gaining selection to attend the XX1 Commonwealth Games in the Gold Coast and extends our best wishes for a successful competition. It is also recommended that Council nominate the Mayor and the Chief Executive or his nominated representative to attend the NI CWG Team dinner being held at the Hilton Waterfront in Belfast on the 16th February.

Page 2 of 2

Robert McVeigh HQ - Chef de Mission NICGC Alison Moffitt-Robinson HQ - General Team Manager Ulster University Mandy McMaster HQ - General Team Manager NICGC Beth Healy HQ NICGC Conal Heatley HQ - Press Attache NICGC Wendy Henderson HQ SportNI Louise McFrederick HQ NICGC Mark Montgomery HQ NI Fire & Rescue Service Stewart Tosh HQ NICGC

Connor Gleadhill Support - Physio New South Wales Police Damian Martin Support - Physiologist SportNI Sport Institute Des Jennings Support - Performance Skills Coach SportNI Sport Institute Julia Webster Support - Physio North Down Physio Laura Ostler Support - Performance Analyst SportNI Sport Institute Mark McAreavey Support - Performance Analyst Lear Training Martin Clenaghan Support - Physio Fusion Physiotherapy Matt Cosgrave Support - Doctor GP, University Health Centre at Queens Orla O'Rourke Support - Physio SportNI Sport Institute Owen Rainey Support - Doctor GP and sport physician, Belfast Peter Scullion Support - Physio Scottish Rugby Football Union Rory Gleadhill Support - Doctor Hunter New England Health, NSW Simon Harland Support - Physio Replay Physiotherapy

Andrew Reid Aquatics - Coach Paul Dennis Aquatics - Coach Barry McClements Aquatics Calum Bain Aquatics Conor Ferguson Aquatics Curtis Coulter Aquatics Danielle Hill Aquatics David Thompson Aquatics James Brown Aquatics Jamie Graham Aquatics Jordan Sloan Aquatics Jackie Newton Athletics - Coach Tom Reynolds Athletics - Coach Laura Kerr Athletics - Coach Adam Kirk-Smith Athletics Adam McMullan Athletics Ben Reynolds Athletics Ciara Mageean Athletics Dempsey McGuigan Athletics Emma Mitchell Athletics Jack Agnew Athletics Kate O'Connor Athletics Leon Reid Athletics Paul Pollock Athletics Sommer Lecky Athletics Kevin Seaward Athletics

Andrew Stewart Badminton - Coach Ciaran Chambers Badminton Rachael Darragh Badminton Sinead Chambers Badminton

John Conlan Boxing - Coach Damian Kennedy Boxing - Coach Peter Brady Boxing - Coach Aidan Walsh Boxing Alana Nihell Boxing Brendan Irvine Boxing Carly McNaul Boxing Conor Wallace Boxing Damien Sullivan Boxing James McGivern Boxing Kristina O'Hara Boxing Kurt Walker Boxing Michaela Walsh Boxing Sean McComb Boxing Stephen McMonagle Boxing Steven Donnelly Boxing Anthony Mitchell Cycling - Coach Gary McKeegan Cycling - Coach Eileen Burns Cycling Lydia Boylan Cycling Marc Potts Cycling Marcus Christie Cycling Mark Downey Cycling Robyn Stewart Cycling Xeno Young Cycling

Luke Carson Gymnastics - Coach Ewan McAteer Gymnastics Rhys McClenaghan Gymnastics

Neil Booth Lawn Bowls - Coach Tommy Smith Lawn Bowls - Coach Andrew Kyle Lawn Bowls Gary Kelly Lawn Bowls Ian McClure Lawn Bowls Martin McHugh Lawn Bowls Simon Martin Lawn Bowls Barbara Cameron Lawn Bowls - Coach Catherine Beattie Lawn Bowls Donna McCloy Lawn Bowls Erin Smith Lawn Bowls Sally McAuley Lawn Bowls Sandra Bailie Lawn Bowls

Elaine Rice Netball - Coach Clar Rois McGuinness Netball - Coach Karen Rollo Netball - Coach Caroline O'Hanlon Netball Fionnuala Toner Netball Gemma Lawlor Netball Kyla Bowman Netball Lisa Bowman Netball Lisa McCaffrey Netball Michelle Drayne Netball Michelle Magee Netball Neamh Woods Netball Niamh Cooper Netball Noleen Lennon Netball Oonagh McCullough Netball Clifford Barr Shooting - Coach Gary Alexander Shooting - Coach Alexandra Skeggs Shooting David Calvert Shooting David Henning Shooting Gareth McAuley Shooting Jack Alexander Shooting Kirsty Barr Shooting Rory Hamilton Shooting Stuart Hill Shooting

John Murphy Table Tennis - Coach Ashley Robinson Table Tennis Owen Cathcart Table Tennis Paul McCreery Table Tennis Zak Wilson Table Tennis

Stephen Delaney Triathlon - Coach Andrea Nash Triathlon - Coach David Kerr Triathlon James Edgar Triathlon Russell White Triathlon

Timmy Graham Weightlifting - Coach Cameron Montgomery Weightlifting Emma McQuaid Weightlifting Rebekah Thompson Weightlifting Stephen Forbes Weightlifting

Barry Pollin Wrestling - Coach Sarah McDaid Wrestling Unclassified

ITEM 14

Ards and North Down Borough Council

Report Classification Unclassified

Council/Committee Community and Wellbeing

Date of Meeting 17 January 2018

Responsible Director Director of Community and Wellbeing

Responsible Head of Head of Community and Culture Service

Date of Report 05 January 2018

File Reference GREL 346

Legislation The Northern Ireland Act 1998

Section 75 Compliant Yes ☒ No ☐ Other ☐ If other, please add comment below:

Subject Good Relations Schools - Visit to France and Belguim 2018

Attachments

As part of the Good Relations Action Plan 2017/2018 children and teachers from Portavogie Primary School and St Mary’s Portaferry will be travelling on a cross community educational programme visiting the battlefields in Belgium and France to increase their understanding of shared history. The project will promote an understanding of the sacrifices made by men from all sections of the community during WWI.

Officers have engaged with primary 7 at Portavogie Primary School (EA) and primary 7 at St Marys Primary School Portaferry (CCMS).

The two schools were chosen as they are in neighbouring villages and therefore close enough to offer the opportunity for the young people to continue to build relationships as they move onto post primary education. 57 young people, 6 teachers and 1 ANDBC Good Relations Officer will an travel together with a guide. The total cost to include travel and accommodation is £22,515.00. The cost of the project can be met from Good Relations budget and the project is included in the Good Relations Action Plan and has received approval from the Executive Office to proceed in this financial year. Members will be aware that 75% of the funding for the

Page 1 of 2

Unclassified

Action Plan is provided from the Executive Office with 25% being met by the Good Relations budget of Ards and North Down Borough Council.

The project will involve 3 full day visits from 27th February 2018 to 2nd March 2018 to sites of the 36th 16th and 10th divisions while also visiting the Canadian trenches and tunnels. It will give the children the opportunity to visit cemeteries, museums and battle remains.

On their return it is proposed that the participants will hold an assembly in each school to share the knowledge they have gained from the programme. Invites will be extended to the parents of the children who attended. The information will be presented to approx. 40 parents (assuming one per child), 20 staff from both schools and 300 children.

Although good relations are not directly responsible for shared education, the visit and learning gained from this project will improve attitudes between children from different backgrounds as they move onto post primary education. The Education Minister has launched a similar programme for year 10 post primary schools and it believed that by introducing the children to this programme at an earlier age, will assist in helping Northern Ireland and the Peace process move forward.

It is proposed that an Officer from the Council’s Good Relations team attend. This will enable the officer to monitor and evaluate the project. It will also enable the officer to build relationships with the schools in order to develop further cross community work. The GRO is also exploring how this type of cross community/educational work with young people could be extended to local community organisations.

Outcomes:

The joint project will deliver the following outcomes and links to the TBUC Children and Young People strategy:

 An increase in the percentage of participants who have a greater understanding of shared history.

 An increase in the percentage of attendees who have a greater understanding of shared history.

 Two schools engaged in a joint cross community project.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council approves that:

1. The project detailed above at a total cost of £22,515.00, 2. An Officer from Good Relations be permitted to attend the cross community educational visit, 3. Any subsistence incurred during the visit be reimbursed to the Good Relations Officer on production of the relevant receipts.

Page 2 of 2