Agenda Item No. Or Decision No
TO: EXECUTIVE DATE: 15th June 2005 SUBJECT: Best Value Review – Community Regeneration BY: Head of Human Resources Classification: Unrestricted Summary: Individual reviews of 10 services within Community Regeneration with Key issues summary/recommendations and Action Plan Implications: Financial – implications are contained within individual reports and the Action Plan. Human resources - will depend on recommendations selected re future operation of services. Section 17 Crime & Disorder – Community safety & CCTV are not covered in this review. Services in the review generally contribute by seeking to improve ‘quality of life’ Sustainability – Actions of ‘regeneration ‘ services in particular contribute to capacity building the economic and social aspects of local communities Decision Required: The Executive is asked to consider the recommendations as summarised in the Key Issues section i) Due to the size/detail of the report, the Executive may prefer to submit the report into the policy review process relating to the Medium Term Financial Strategy.
COMMUNITY REGENERATION BEST VALUE REVIEW
Service Page No: Covering Report 3
Key Issues 8
Festivals and Events 13
Swale Museums 21
District Offices 26
Community Halls 32
Community Development 40
Grants to Voluntary Organisations 51
External Funding 68
Sure Start 81
Economic Development 84
Tourism 97
Action Plan 105
2 COMMUNITY REGENERATION REVIEW
Introduction
General Approach
1. All local authorities in England are required to carry out Best Value reviews of their services over a five year period. Under the Local Government Act 1999 Swale Borough Council (and all other local authorities) has to secure continuous improvement in the delivery of services taking account of
• Economy • Efficiency • Effectiveness • Equity • Environment
Best Value legislation requires authorities to
• challenge why, how and by whom services are provided or if they should be provided at all • compare performance with other organisations delivering these services • consult with local taxpayers, business and partners on priorities, performance and targets • compete by subjecting services to fair and open competition in an appropriate and relevant way.
Terms of Reference
2. The terms of reference have been defined within a Project Initiation Document commissioned by the Council’s Chief Executive Officer as:
3. To deliver an approved Best Value report and action plan on Community Regeneration, identifying changes in service delivery, within an agreed timescale to a standard that will meet the objectives set out in the DTLR Guidance Note for Best Value Reviews.
Scope
This Best Value Review of Community Regeneration includes the following services:-
‹ Festivals and Events including culture/arts ‹ Museums ‹ District Offices ‹ Community Halls ‹ Community Development ‹ Voluntary Grants ‹ External Funding ‹ Sure Start ‹ Economic Development ‹ Tourism
Community Regeneration Unit - Purpose
To reduce social & economic disadvantage and provide opportunities for local people by creating strong, vibrant and prosperous communities in Swale.
3 4. The above to be achieved through leading and co-ordinating work with other agencies and partners to deliver a step change in the identified priority issues effecting economic and social aspects of life in the Borough.
5. CRU work is central to, and contributes to all aspects of the Council’s Vision (Thriving Community, Strong Economy & Healthy Environment) through key Executive Committee priorities as highlighted below….
6. It provides the Council’s resource supporting the Local Strategic Partnership in producing the Swale Sustainable Communities Plan (Priority Swale) – and co-ordinates the implementation of the Kent Local Area Agreement in Swale.
7. It engages with and enables the delivery of the Thames Gateway initiative, both directly on projects working with and supporting Swale Forward and other partners (e.g. SEEDA)
8. It addresses the issue of Community Safety through partnership in the Swale Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnership.
9. Details of the above in terms of objectives and projects and other priorities can be found in the Unit’s Service Plan. (key unit objectives are included with the Council Vision section below)
How do the services within the CRU relate?
10. Community Regeneration services as currently established focus on Regeneration, Community facilities (Halls, Museums, District Offices) and Services to the public (inc Festivals, Events, Community safety).
11. The key emphasis is in bringing together the functions necessary for sustained Regeneration by improving economic and social opportunity and capacity. This includes Community & Economic Development, Tourism, Community Safety, Culture/ Arts and External Funding together with facilitating Sure Start (SBC accountable body). This is supported by direct activity such as Festivals & Events, which help to visibly celebrate the area.
(N.B. not all CRU services are included in this review, Community Safety and CCTV were assessed within the Balancing Housing Markets review. Subsidiarity – devolved decision making at Parish/Town Council level – was not reviewed due to being within first year of operation, but is referred to [Parish Grant Scheme] within the section dealing with Grants to Voluntary Organisations.)
Partnership working
12. Within the Council liaison is undertaken though cross working groups such as Community Safety (with Environment, Recreation & Housing services) and Spatial Planning, (including local plans, open spaces, engineering)
13. The unit structure (Annex B) includes posts funded or part funded by external agencies including Sure Start, Community Development workers, and Community Safety staff where close liaison with the Council is essential to effective progress.
14. In addition, representation on and support of both thematic and area based working (at regional, sub-regional and local level) is extensive, including children/youth, voluntary, business, learning & health sectors.
15. The combination of services within the unit significantly contributes to the representation of Swale to external / local agencies and organisations, business and the public.
4
Financial Resources
16. Community Regeneration Unit was formed in 2003/4. In that financial year, the revenue cost of operating all CRU services was £1,403,000. Capital funding relating to projects from these services (excluding that relating to SBC administered buildings) was £106,500.
17. Examples of costs of service over time are given below and demonstrate that apart from an overall decreasing trend, those involving premises are variable with maintenance requirements/income generation and others subject to policy change to providing more ‘strategic level ’ service e.g. Economic Development.
Community Regeneration Actual Expend iture Service 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 Culture/Festival s /Events/Arts 76,750 100,860 159,510 87,840 95,580
Museums 40,770 19,770 17,570 14,650 24,590
Community 331,390 374,320 384,820 349,110 264,080 Halls & Centres
Economic 355,580 324,170 338,220 205,540 191,180 Development
Tourism 171,310 159,590 150,590 123,520 89,670
Total cost comparison with other authorities is difficult due to variation in service provision however where possible comparison has been sought in individual reviews.
Human Resources
18. The structure of Community and Regeneration Services is attached as Appendix B. A function of the Community Regeneration review is to demonstrate what resources are required to deliver services effectively and efficiently. Recommendations for future staffing and structures will take account of the need to:
1. Secure improvements in service delivery, performance monitoring and development 2. Integrate with the Customer Service Centre 3. Make optimum use of information technology and communications developments where this will improve customer service and service delivery 4. Allow greater flexibility to improve staff retention and motivation 5. Provide a base for developing Investor In People, Business Excellence/Service First criteria 6. Promote closer working relationships with partner organisations concerned with community regeneration issues. 7. Provide opportunities for professional development
5 Background
19. In undertaking this review and developing an action plan regard has been given to internal and external influences. Internally these include the Council’s Customer Service Centre initiative, the progression of electronic service delivery, the development of the Council’s website, the Council’s financial position, changes to operating methods and in particular flexible working, changing relationships with partner organisations and the development of Public Service Agreements (PSAs) which are now developing (2005/6) as the Kent Local Area Agreement (LAA). External influences have included the Comprehensive Performance Assessment programme and ‘State of the Borough’ survey commissioned with Swale Forward to compare and assess the Borough’s relative position against other UK districts on a range of socio/economic/environmental aspects.
Review Method
20. Prior to commencing the Best Value review, Swale Borough Council undertook a ‘Policy Review’. This was an exercise to establish the relative importance of the Council’s services. The services were ranked according to a weighted score. Details of the scheme and results are available as background documents from the Council’s Best Value Team. The rationale for the policy review involved member approval.
21. Both Members and the Councils broader Management Team undertook subsequent visioning exercises. The outcome of these resulted in the Council’s current Mission Statement and Corporate Values.
22. Initial reviews of service were then conducted during 2000/1. These involved a preliminary assessment of the most appropriate service options for detailed consideration i.e. whether the service could be tendered, options for partnership, etc. and an appraisal of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats for each service area. Service delivery staff conducted the SWOT analyses during the stage 1 reviews. The outcomes of the initial reviews were presented to the Council’s Executive for approval with reference to the outcome of the policy review.
23. A Business Improvement Team (BIT) comprising the Service Unit Managers of the sections involved, key operational staff, support staff, a Council Member and an external ‘critical friend’ has undertaken the final stage of Best Value review.
The report is in three sections
1. Key Issues paper - summarising each of the individual service reviews suggesting ways to improve the service 2. action plan building on the individual service reviews drawing on the key issues paper 3. the individual service reviews
Review Team Membership
An independent project manager, Janet Mason, the Council’s Human Resources Manager, has led the review team. Team members were;
Chris Edwards Chief Executive Cllr. Crowther BV Member Group Janet Mason Project Leader Peter Jolley Head of Community and Regeneration Peter Speakman Chief Community Services Officer Steve Vartoukian Community Development Officer Jan West Arts and Facilities Manager Kieren Mansfield Economic Development Officer Jill Read Economic Development Assistant
6 Lyn Newton Tourism Development Officer John Fowler Director - Sure Start Pam Hall Best Value External Challenge Greg McDonald
Management Service Improvement Board (SIB )
24. A Service Improvement Board (SIB) comprising members of the Executive and senior officers was formed to consider ways to fundamentally review services to make sure they are delivered efficiently and cost effectively to improve customer satisfaction and quality of service..
Improvements may be achieved by ‹ incorporating parts or all of the service into the Customer Service Centre (CSC) ‹ outsourcing parts or all of the service ‹ through e-Government ‹ any other corporate approach.
25. The SIB also considers and implements other corporate review initiatives, including Best Value and CPA, as well as partnership working opportunities.
Member Business Value/Comprehensive Performance Assessment Working Group
26. A Member Business Value/Comprehensive Performance Assessment Working Group was formed to give Councillors the opportunity to take part in milestone meetings of the Best Value Review Team to air their views and, in the final stages of the review, to see the draft report and criticise or commend, as they feel fit.
Council Key Objectives and Long Term Aims
The Council has adopted the following aims and objectives
Strong Economy
1. A strong local economy, shared by all 2. A strong local economy with the infrastructure to keep it moving
Thriving Community
3. A thriving community that feels and is safe 4. A thriving community with lots of opportunities to enjoy leisure time 5. A thriving community with access to skills and learning to support the local economy
Healthy Environment
6. A healthy environment, encouraging healthy lifestyles 7. A healthy environment with modern social and health care services 8. A healthy environment where the needs for growth are balanced with the need to preserve a distinctive identity
Reference (with examples of main priorities relating to the Councils’ Vision) has already been made above to the CRU service plan for details of priorities, objectives and projects.
Janet Mason Head of Human Resources Project Leader April 2005
7 Key Issues
Introduction
1. Due to the length of the overall report, this section summarises the recommendations for each service, which are detailed in the Action Plan. The report has become ‘historical’ in terms of being delayed from original reporting schedule of February 2005 and therefore significant changes are marked in italics.
2. A general summary / comment has been added to help keep the review in context with recent events and identify further future action.
3. Services* have been grouped in terms of their main association (initially Community facilities/services to the public and Regeneration – some of which also provide service to public/businesses) for the purposes of considering key issues:
Community facilities/services
Festivals/events/culture/arts Museums District Offices Community Halls.
Festivals/events/culture/arts
4. The above reviews identified the problem of improving the services against standstill /reducing budgets where increasing commercial costs are a significant factor. However public perception (Priority Search data) suggests that Council organised events are among the most improved Council services over the last 2 years, possibly reflecting appreciation of quality and recognising that events – such as the Faversham Hop Festival have become ‘established’. • –Mount Ephraim Concert – becoming unsustainable in terms of being self funding venue capacity and relatively narrow community appeal – investigate possibility of commercially run alternative headline event • Look for additional resources external/commercial to assist existing events or explore alternatives • Arts development – staff resource to exploit youth/regeneration aspects (March 2005 – successful bid to ‘Arts in the Centre’ for Development worker for Queenborough/Rushenden)
Museums
5. Museums have a low priority within the Cultural Strategy. The Council provides and maintains buildings for voluntary organisations to run the museums, which would not survive if responsibility were transferred to the latter. The buildings are mostly of historic value (some may be subject to DDA improvements) and require on-going maintenance. With one exception, they are unsuitable for other uses i.e. residential. Even with additional resources potential for improvement (visitor numbers in relation to National BVPI indicators) is limited.
• Re-designate for SBC reference as local Heritage centres to reflect their variety and local management. • Where possible seek to transfer buildings to appropriate organisations /groups who will maintain in their existing /improved format. If no interest in transfer, consideration of sale/closure is recommended for consideration.
* see note under ‘How do CRU services relate?’ in the introduction section of the Review.
8 District Offices
6. The survey undertaken for this review shows that local access to services particularly for Housing benefits and cash payments (almost exclusively council tax) is valued. As of December 2004 both Faversham & Sheerness offices have Customer Service Centre staffing giving wider face to face access to SBC services. Subject to further investigation this review would suggest that maintaining the District offices are not the most cost effective means of delivering such services. The potential for servicing cash payments is currently being reviewed. While there appears to be little marginal revenue benefit in disposing of the premises (and leasing smaller premises elsewhere in the town) the situations of the two Offices are different
• There is interest from Faversham Town Council in operating the Alexander Centre which is constrained with the integration of the Gatefield Hall and other rooms. (see below) – services could remain as part of negotiated terms. • There is the potential advantage in Sheerness of a capital receipt and the potential regeneration of the Trinity road site, allowing or the services to relocated elsewhere and tenant leases suitably resolved. • Facilities management (Central House) & public clocks were not included in this review and are recommended for future investigation.
Community Halls
7. Each of the Councils Community halls (4) have been reviewed over the last 4 years. This has resulted in Kemsley Concert Hall being leased to a local management trust and the Borough Hall (Queenborough) and King Georges Hall (Sittingbourne) remaining within Council control. The 2004/5 review looked at the Alexander Centre Halls (Faversham) which are integrated with the District Office/Faversham Town Council (FTC) facilities. Halls are operated at a deficit, which is subsidised to encourage a broad range of groups and new community activities. While charges are generally considered value for money, SBC operates with relatively high overhead costs and during consultation interest was expressed by FTC in managing/acquiring the Alexander centre complex.
• Investigate possible transfer/management of Halls in Alexander Centre.
• Subject to above, progress recommendations of review including use of Batterbee room or disabled access provision given access difficulties to first floor.
Regeneration
Community Development/ Voluntary grants External Funding Sure Start Economic Development Tourism
Community Development
8. Community Leadership was identified as a key role for the Council in the 2004 CPA assessment. The CD function by extending partnerships and developing community capacity is essentially increasing understanding between statutory and community agents. The challenge is how these activities can develop given limited resources. Key areas that need a continued lead to develop include the Voluntary sector, Youth, Childrens’ services and tackling disadvantage (through the development of partnership i.e. LSP/SF). The associated action plan covers activities directed towards residents, developing local groups, networking such groups and working with public authorities/agencies/business sector.
9 • Co-ordinator required to drive forward LSP /Community Plan allowing maximum impact on partnership/brokerage activity. • Need for a neighbourhood renewal/regeneration strategy to focus more support on the most disadvantaged communities. • Development of a Youth Strategy which addresses needs of urban /rural communities and cross cuts the work of the CDRP/Youth Service and other agencies. • Co-ordination of Grant funding – corporately and with main partners i.e. CDRP/Swale Forward to ensure efficient targeting of resources. • Use BV review to develop Community Development Strategy
Voluntary Grants
9. Undertaken as part of the CD review, comparison has been made between national COMPACT best practice and existing Council grant schemes including Parish Grants. Recommendations include better clarity in what funding is trying to achieve, better assessment systems and corporate use of SLAs. These and other recommendations will be out-worked through COMPACT development and corporate Grants administration/co- ordination as proposed within the CD action plan.
External Funding
10. External funding service has facilitated a marked increase in financial support into the Borough since inception. Its focus in supporting voluntary and community organisations is strategically driven through Council strategies and it essentially capacity builds local organisations through advice, information and direct assistance as well as providing assistance to internal department when required. The current provision is judged to be the most rounded and flexible to meet the demand.
• To maintain strategic priorities against rising demand, standard enquiry and associated information be collated on website. • Officer to work closely with proposed corporate grant administration/co-ordination to ensure standardised knowledge base and offer pro-active assistance (subject to priority) where Council grant not available. • Review homeworking trial (one year) regarding performance and customer satisfaction. (annual funding target achieved & 2nd survey shows positive customer reaction )
Sure Start
11. The Council is the accountable body for Sure Start Sheerness (SSS) serving children of under 4 and their families in the most deprived wards in England (Sheerness East & West) it is funded through the DfES. Service is independently evaluated every year. SSS is funded for 10 years (2005 yr 5) within which the needs of the target population must b identified addressed in innovative ways that can then be ‘mainstreamed’. Improving the service can therefore be seen as successfully meeting identified need in a way that is sustainable post cessation of funding. The Council has assisted in administering the construction process of a Children & Family centre – a central future facility which will be self sustaining due to use by other partners (PCT)
• Potential transfer of accountable status to KCC under Sure Starts inclusion within the Kent Local Area Agreement Pilot. • Completion of Children & Family centre within set timescales • Manage community expectations as services integrated into mainstream providers.
Economic Development
12. Since 2002 the Council has focussed Economic Development service on strategic issues which have resulted in the securing of significant external (ODPM & SEEDA) funding relating to the Thames Gateway/North Kent Area Investment Framework. Through this, major issues are being addressed such as Infrastructure and Learning which are fundamental in
10 achieving the Councils Vision of a Strong Economy and at the same time contributing to the sense of community leadership. However, the current challenge is to engage the business community, at a time when representative organisations are disperate and scarcely representative. For this reason maintaining a property/enquiry service helps to build an intelligence base and there is a strong need to review the successfully completed 2000/05 ED Strategy which will require a good level of consultation.
• Review Economic Development Strategy • Establish robust mechanism for on-going consultation with the business community • Use IT as far as possible to reduce time on enquiries for concentration on strategic issues • Consider withdrawal of funding for grant advisory service for Tier 2 assistance due to decline in numbers and amount of awards.
Tourism
13. In a similar way to Economic Development, Tourism has also focused on the Strategic approach through emphasis on Development and Partnership working and from 2003 has operated with one member of staff. This situation restricts efficiency in that inevitable routine information enquiries divert officer time distracting from the above aspects which offer the most potential to add value (i.e. improving quality - new business development, staff training etc). IT and website solutions are used to assist this information requirement. While the Council has been pursuing a policy of subsidiarity, in relation to tourism it is considered essential to retain Borough wide working to retain critical mass to achieve/offer benefits to local tourism businesses through wider range of partnerships with neighbouring authorities. New opportunities and new markets (essentially rural initiatives- including eco – tourism) are also being developed with the potential to attract regional/national funding.
• Tourism Strategy revision (within ED Strategy) • Investigate alternative handling of information enquiries.
Summary
14. Services within Community Regeneration are all discretionary (with the exception of Community Safety, not covered here). However, the Councils’ Vision together with emphasis placed by the Government on social and economic regeneration through community leadership & partnership working requires input such as provided by the services included within the ‘Regeneration’ function.
15. In addition to the need to prioritise for financial reasons, there is a clear necessity developing to provide the support and service for the Local Strategic Partnership and the Community Plan to ensure community response and ownership. The need for a Co-ordinator post as identified above (Community Development) will also be reinforced by joining the Local Area Agreement, (separate report on current Executive agenda).
16. Within the ‘Community Facilities’ group of services, the future of the District Offices and Museums are highlighted, together with Festivals & Events, which face the annual challenge of maintaining quality against fixed budgets which becomes more difficult each year. There are also interests in services from considering the extension of Subsidiarity* as noted below.
17. Members’ views on the review of the services are now sought.
11 * Subsidiarity
In pursuing the potential extension of Subsidiarity the larger 3rd tier councils (Faversham, Minister & Queenborough) have been surveyed as to what services would be of interest for increased localised decision making. Within the above services these include Festivals & Events, Tourism, Community and Economic development. Apart from specific projects such as localising ownership/management of the Alexander centre, the focus is on how local decision making influence can be increased. Essentially there will be a number of local claims on limited resources which may conflict with strategic ‘borough’ work prioirities. Where relevant in the reviews, the application of subsidiarity has been discussed and the view taken that the strategic approach should remain intact, however it is appreciated that a separate report will be required to look into the subject further.
Peter Jolley Head of Community Regeneration May 2005
12 F ESTIVAL & EVENTS INCLUDING CULTURE/ARTS
Purpose of the Review
The review is intended to inform discussions and policy decisions about the extent of the Council’s role in creating cultural opportunity throughout the Borough in order to provide a best value service.
Scope
This review examines the Council’s enabling role, and its partnership with the voluntary and commercial providers, the North Kent Local Authority Partnership Project and other strategic agencies, the Swale Festival, the Sittingbourne Spectacular, Sheppey Show and the Faversham International Hop Festival. The review also examines other arts activities.
Service Background
This discretionary service is provided against a background of ‘cultural well being’ of the Borough, as defined in the authority’s Cultural Strategy 2002 – 2007, which was compiled following an external public consultation exercise.
The service has been developed over many years through close co-operation with a wide variety of voluntary and commercial organisations and by direct provision creating a programme of seasonal events throughout the Borough.
This service is organised by the Arts and Facilities Manager, the Events Co-ordinator and a part time festival assistant operating primarily from the Sheerness District Office. The most intensive period of events is during the annual Swale Festival which takes place throughout July each year with street events in July, August and early September.
The Council has an enabling role and has long accepted that the most cost effective way of providing a Borough wide, comprehensive arts and cultural service is in partnership by encouraging and enabling others to contribute. The Council offers advice, marketing and publicity expertise, venues, and acts as a focus for numerous smaller groups and organisations. The Council can link the voluntary and commercial providers with external funding and technical agencies such as The Arts Council, South East.
Voluntary sector partnership – The Council has a grants budget of some £16,000 to assist voluntary sector groups. As well as providing publicity for the voluntary sector, the Council also provides ‘free use’ (funded from the Swale Festival budget) of the Council’s community halls for festival events and also offers a contribution towards other venue hire. This financial support and enabling role allows community groups to showcase a diverse range of specialist events. This partnership supports and develops local organisations/artists thus encouraging artistic growth.
The Council in partnership with the voluntary sector has, in the past, created two of the three theatres in Swale – The Avenue Theatre in Central House, Sittingbourne and the Arden Theatre next to Faversham Pools. The Council also assisted with the purchase of premises next to the Sheppey Little Theatre, which allowed for the expansion of the theatre facilities. The Council continues to work closely with all three theatre groups assisting them with grants and external funding opportunities.
The commercial providers – close liaison is maintained with the management companies operating the Sheppey Leisure Complex/Healthy Living centre, the Swallows in Sittingbourne and also with the Faversham Pools management trust. The Council web site also gives details of Council owned and private venues throughout the Borough which be used for
13 cultural activities. The Council also works closely with Kent County Council, schools and libraries.
North Kent Local Authority Partnership and other statutory agencies
From 2003 Arts Council England South East has been working closely with local authorities to implement 12 new sub-regional partnerships across the South East.
The North Kent Local Authority Partnership – made up of Dartford Borough Council, Gravesham Borough Council, Medway Unitary Authority and Swale Borough Council – aims to maximise the benefits the arts can bring to communities and individuals. The Partnership which also involves the Arts Council England and Kent County Council has identified a number of shared objectives:-
• Community engagement through the arts • Festivals • Public Art • Joined up marketing and audience development • Arts as a means of community consultation • Cultural provision in North Kent
These objectives will be a primary area of focus over the next three years.
The introduction of this partnership means that the financial relationship between local authorities and Art Council England has changed and from 2004/5 subscription invoices have been replaced by mechanisms for joint investment that have been developed in each area as part of the Partnership Agreements. A shared pilot project has been developed and will be developed between now and July 2005). The project will be a film about four characters animated through sculpture, drama and dance with a professional writer producing script. Each character will be created by the four participating Boroughs/Districts and will be brought together for an exhibition and public screening of the finished film.
The whole project is costing some £48,000 of which £3,650 has been funded by Swale. A project co-ordinator has been employed and is currently progressing, in collaboration with the Partnership and each of the authorities arts and leisure personnel, the delivery of a project with the overarching theme of “Sense of place and identity in a period of great change”.
Swale Festival
The Swale Festival is managed in-house and has the co-ordinating role of bringing together a month of artistic activity with the voluntary sector. The Council produces and prints some 40,000 programmes listing the activities within the festival period and which are distributed through an extensive mailing list and to local residents.
This long established service has a record of partnership working, is managed with the co- operation of volunteer organisers, venue managers, paid and professional organisers, performers and artistes to produce a programme of seasonal events throughout the Borough. Work is divided between supporting an annual programme of activities and direct promotion of concerts. The Council in its enabling role provides ‘free use’ of Council owned facilities and some limited financial assistance towards other venue hire.
Festival participants have been asked for their views on the Swale Festival and the questionnaire with responses are available if requested. Members should note that most festival participants valued and appreciated the Council’s enabling role and wish the Festival to continue.
14 The flagship event of the Festival is the Mount Ephraim open-air concert usually with the Royal Philharmonic Concert Orchestra and promoted by the Borough Council in cooperation with an external concert promoter. Only the grounds of Mount Ephraim have been considered for this concert given it is the only venue in Swale able to take in excess of 3,500 people with the necessary infrastructure and desired ambience.
In November 2002 the Swale Festival Panel considered whether to continue with ‘in-house’ management of the concert or to invite a private sector organisation to totally promote future concerts. Members recommended that the Council continue with the organisation of the Concert but that the situation be reviewed again should the venue or organiser be altered.
The concerts have attracted between 2,300 and 3,300 persons per concert and have undoubtedly raised the cultural profile of the Borough. Until the 13th concert in 2003 the event had been in a profit situation but that year incurred a deficit of some £5,300 (partially due to the international golf tournament at Sandwich). With a more dynamic and targeted marketing approach and increased sponsorship a relatively smaller deficit (just under £1,000) was incurred in 2004.
A customer survey was undertaken at the 2004 concert, (copy available upon request), and Members should note that high levels of satisfaction were expressed and favourable comments made about the concert from the audience.
Swale Festival Budgetary Information to December 2004
Original Budget Spent To Dec 04 External/Internal Printing £1,600 £1,466 Inside Swale Advertising Nil £47 Advertising & Promotion £15,500 £15,486 Supp & Service Insurance £10 £16 Support Service Recharge* £28,410 £18,592
Mount Ephraim Event £66,450 £65,500 (loss of £950)
(* this figure includes street events work)
Street Events
The three street events (which are free to all) – Sittingbourne Spectacular, Sheppey Show and the Faversham Hop Festival are run directly by the Council but with assistance from local volunteers and organisations in all three towns. Both the Swale Festival and the street events are now well-established events attracting many visitors/residents to the Borough. By achieving a sense of place and identity, festivals/street events enhance local image and bring valuable experiences to both those participating and those attending.
The street events and festivals provide an opportunity for socialising and a community celebration, developing local distinctiveness and pride. This is especially recognised with the Faversham Hop Festival which is now considered one of the major festivals in Kent attracting in excess of 20,000 visitors over the weekend.
The increasing profile of all these events is indicated by the amount of sponsorship in kind attracted from large businesses, both local and national including Robert Brett Group of Companies, P & O, Eurotunnel and Shepherd Neame. The success of the street events is reflected in the approach by some local businesses to the festival organisers with a view to being associated with what are now regarded as prestigious events.
The injection of private funding has helped to bring professional street theatre to the Borough with the obvious benefit that residents and visitors are able to enjoy a standard of entertainment and diverse cultural activity that they may have, otherwise, not been offered.
15
The raised profile of these events over the past five years ties in with the aspirations of the Cultural strategy which seeks to promote, develop, increase attendance and improve the various street events. The success of the festivals has had economic benefits to all three towns both in visitor spending and inward investment. The recent hop festival questionnaire indicated that many visitors were ‘regular repeat visitors’ from outside the Borough. This is important given the emphasis on supporting the Council’s objective for a thriving economy.
Sittingbourne Spectacular, held the 2nd Saturday in July, aims to provide a colourful, flagship, free family event in the town centre. The small committee organise and promote live music, childrens’ activities and international street artistes and this serves to attract in excess of 5,000 visitors to the town. With an average spend of £5 per head it is estimated that there is at least a £25,000 boost to spending in the town.
The cost to the authority of staging the 2004 event (excluding support service recharges) was some £3,433. Nearly £2,000 was raised by way of private sponsorship.
Sheppey Show – held the 3rd Saturday in August, in close liaison with the annual summer carnival committee, at Beachfields, Sheerness from 12 noon. With children’s entertainment throughout the afternoon, live music from early evening culminating in a firework finale. Whilst this event is funded by the Borough Council, (approximately £3,100) and promoted by the Arts and Facilities Manager and the Events Co-ordinator, the firework display is sponsored by a local businessman. Economic benefit is difficult to quantify, however, with an attendance of 3,000 visitors at an additional spend of £2 per head some £6,000 is put into the local economy.
Faversham International Hop Festival, a two-day event held during the first weekend after the August Bank Holiday, attracting in excess of 10,000 visitors to Faversham each day and is now regarded as one of the largest and most successful festivals in Kent on par with far more established and older events such as the Sweeps Festival in Rochester and Broadstairs Folk Week. There are reports which show the high level of satisfaction expressed by visitors attending the Hop Festival (copies available upon request).
Although working with a committee from local Faversham organisations the Hop Festival has grown to such an extent over the past five years that it now dominates the workloads of the Events Co-ordinator and, to a lesser extent, the Arts and Facilities Manager.
The weekend costs in excess of £16,000 to stage, however, excluding the support service recharges the cost to the authority is some £8,435. Faversham Town Council and external corporate sponsorship and sponsorship in kind is sought for this event annually.
Again economic benefit is difficult to quantify, however, with an attendance of 10,000 per day at a spend of say £5 per head some £50,000 is put into the local economy although further inward investment through repeat visits to the Borough is not quantifiable without more investment in a detailed cost benefit analysis study of the event.
Other Art activities
From 1998 onwards an arts development post was funded by SRB 5, however, when the post-holder left the Council’s employment in 2001 this post was not filled. Instead support to local organisations, societies and schools was initially handled by the Chief Community Services Officer but more latterly by the Arts and Facilities Manager. The arts development budget of some £16,000 this financial year has been committed as follows:-
2003/4 Subscription to Local Authority Arts Partnership £3,645 2004/5 “ “ “ “ £3,645 Funding of public art strategy £1,500 East Kent Cultural Consortium contribution £1,000 Grant to Sittingbourne & Sheppey Writers Group £250 Swale Schools Music Project with Kent Music School £690
16 Big Fish Band – grant towards musical instruments £500 Sheerness Christmas Lantern Procession £300 Arts activities during sports development summer programme (organised by the sport dev. Team) £1,000 Sittingbourne Music Society – assistance towards venue hire £150 Faversham Society – shoes and shoemaking exhibition £750 City of Canterbury Symphony Orchestra project with Westminster School £1,462 Portraits of Sheerness – project with Rose Street School and Sheerness library £413
Total £15,942
Members are advised that following the Community Play held at the Sheppey Leisure Complex in 2001 the Big Fish Band and Theatre Trust was formed and has been extremely successful attending numerous events throughout Swale and Kent. In particular the Trust held a Christmas Lantern Procession in Sheerness in November 2004 which attracted in excess of some 500 people. Workshops were held at all primary schools and some youth groups where ‘ship lanterns’ were made and paraded through the town to coincide with the Christmas lights switch on.
A Swale based artists directory has been created on the Council’s web site to raise awareness of the diversity of artistic activity in Swale as well as enabling local people to participate more accessibly in local arts activities. The directory also provides a networking facility for local artists.
In beginning the cultural strategy several priorities were agreed, namely, to further develop the street festivals, thus improving the economic, social and cultural activity in Swale town centres, offering more cultural activities in public buildings and raising the profile of the history of Sheppey.
The Cultural strategy also calls upon the Council to encourage the commercial sector to specifically provide a cinema on the Isle of Sheppey. An invitation to tender for a feasibility study to establish a community cinema has been written and discussions are taking place with possible venue managers.
Challenge
The Council’s flagship concert at Mount Ephraim is promoted by the Borough Council but with assistance from an external concert promoter. This working relationship is, tried, trusted and tested with the concerts achieving a consistently high standard of professionalism that Mount Ephraim concert visitors have come to expect. By being involved in and promoting a quality key event in the Borough the Council are seen to be directly supporting the cultural strategy.
The physical limitations of Mount Ephraim prevent scope for major expansion of audience numbers and limit potential for further promoter investment and development of the event. As most private sector management companies would expect in excess of a 15% profit margin this may price the event out of existence. No other quality venue, with similar size, infrastructure and facilities, exists in the Borough although venues like Barton’s Point could be used for perhaps lower key activities.
Members have recently agreed (November 2002 and January 2003) that given the Mount Ephraim Concert retains its existing format, it is appropriate for the existing joint promotion arrangements to continue in 2005.
Whilst two of the street events – Sittingbourne Spectacular and the Faversham Hop Festival - have working partnerships with local groups and individuals the predominance of the work is done in house and undertaken by the Events Co-ordinator and the Arts and Facilities Manager.
17
However it should be stressed that the scale and size of these events now in no way resembles how the events first started out especially with the hop festival which now attracts television coverage. All the events have sought to increase local identity and distinctiveness, pride and have had an economic impact. Without SBC administrative and financial support the events could not continue in their present form and should funding be reduced/stopped it is considered that the profile and quality would not be initially comparable to the existing prestigious events, which have consistently achieved excellent press coverage. Members will see from the attached annexes excellent customer satisfaction and ‘feel good factor’ responses.
Members will note the priorities of the cultural strategy for Swale for the period 2002 – 2007 and it is considered that the street events do tie in with those objectives namely to increase the scale, community involvement and ultimately visitor numbers which assists in the regeneration of the area.
Compare
It is difficult to compare our Swale Festival month of activities and street events with similar neighbouring authorities given the diversity of them. In addition there are no national performance indicators to compare the performance of the festivals. However our own, recently repeated, customer surveys indicates an overall satisfaction, with the request for more similar events in the Borough. The Exeter benchmarking group has been unable to assist with comparisons on festivals and events.
However, local festivals, ie the Canterbury Festival receives Canterbury City Council funding, but is organised and promoted by the Canterbury Theatre and Festival Trust. The Sweeps and Dickens Festivals are run in-house by Medway Council.
Consult
During the planning of the Cultural Strategy 3,000 people who either live, work, or study in Swale or visit were asked about the things that were important to them and what they felt the term ‘culture’ meant. It became clear the ‘culture’ was about the “cultural well being of an area” and not just the cultural services managed, funded or regulated by the Council. “Cultural well being of an area” meant the activities, facilities, public features and traditions identified within the area plus the needs, demands and aspirations of the communities that the Council serves.
In terms of community arts it seeks to engage young people in a wide range of taster activities to encourage local talent. Although the Swale Youth Forum suggested a ‘battle of the bands event, unfortunately, on the three years it was held attendance was extremely low and has not been repeated since 2002.
As part of public consultation best value questionnaires were included with the Mount Ephraim Souvenir programme, the Faversham Hop Festival programme and a questionnaire sent to all Swale Festival participants. Copies of the questionnaires and responses are given as annexes to this report. Overall satisfaction with the Mount Ephraim Concert, Swale Festival and the Hop Festival has been very high with few negative comments and the responses overwhelmingly call for similar quality concerts and events.
Competition
The Council has not had a policy of competing with either the voluntary or commercial sectors and the delivery of services through external agencies has been paramount. This service is one widely recognised as requiring subsidy and the Council requirements dictate that if public money is to be used to assist service delivery then careful arrangements need to be in hand to ensure propriety.
18 Consequently close links between funding agencies and those delivering the services are therefore required. Artistic activity throughout the Borough within the voluntary sector remains very high and the Council in supporting the voluntary sector has created a community events site on its web pages.
Best Value assessment
Accepting that the above events/programmes contribute to the aims of the Swale Cultural Strategy, can they be improved ?
The Festival and Street events are used as platforms to encourage involvement/promotion of voluntary/community groups and activities with SBC staff providing sufficient co-ordination /finance to successfully facilitate events. More involvement from such groups could be forthcoming (Sheerness Show)
If the current provision continues (but with restricted budgets – no increase) inevitably promotional costs increase and external sponsorship will be required to maintain quality.
Withdrawal of SBC staff inputs would probably not stimulate additional voluntary/business input although the events (with exception of Sheerness) would probably continue but at a lesser quality for a while at least.
Maintaining a Swale co-ordinating input encourages the opportunity of wider exposure for individual community events.
Similarly in Arts/cultural activities – the Swale participation in the North Kent L A programme (especially with the strong emphasis on the importance of Art within the Thames Gateway Sustainable Communities programme) will help to bring additional resources/opportunities to local communities.
Key measures of success / performance targets
There are no national performance indicators. Success is based on completion of events their cost, success in terms of participant reaction and their overall contribution to the aims of the Swale Cultural Strategy
Major Issues
The headline event Mt Ephraim concert (while getting very positive reaction from audiences) is limited both in capacity and appeal. The last 2 years have shown small deficits and as costs rise additional sponsorship will need to be found – which will not always be possible. Standstill budgets will inevitably erode quality and awareness of events which already have a high level of voluntary enabling/input and some commercial/ external sponsorship. Latter inputs must either be increased or alternative events/initiatives found that give similar opportunities for community interaction.
The emerging appreciation of the importance of Art in aiding regeneration and especially in developing the interest of young people is a challenge in terms of the staff resources to exploit potential.
Recommendations which Members may wish to consider:-
• Members are asked to note and endorse as an overriding principle the benefits of delivering a cultural service by maximising working partnership and cooperation with the voluntary and commercial sectors;
• Examine whether a new arts development officer post might be able to raise the artistic emphasis and further develop co-operative partnerships especially in areas of social deprivation and linked to the Gateway investments;
19
• Given concerns over the need for the Council/officer investment in the Mount Ephraim concert, the value it contributes and whether any subsidy/loss is acceptable, it has been suggested that another promotion (different place/time/more unique event which would be attractive to the wider community) be considered but run totally by an external operator;
• Further develop the concept of a community cinema on Sheppey;
• Carry out customer research to establish the further needs of the community;
• Develop further pilot initiatives in partnership to sponsor further outreach work and community-based arts projects focussing on young people;
20 SWALE MUSEUMS
Purpose of the Review
The review is intended to inform discussions and policy decisions about the extent of the Council’s involvement in providing and promoting museums in the Borough.
Scope
The review is confined to those museums that are housed in buildings or on sites owned by the Council. These include the Chart Gunpowder Mills in Faversham, Rose Street Heritage Centre, Sheerness, Minster Abbey Gatehouse, Minster, and Guildhall Museum Queenborough, Periwinkle Water Mill, Milton Regis and Court Hall, Milton Regis. It does not include other museums that we occasionally assist through the consideration of grant applications or promote as part of the Swale Tourism Association. Therefore, the Dolphin Barge Sailing Museum, the Sittingbourne Heritage museum, the Fleur de Lis Heritage Centre, the Sittingbourne and Kemsley Light Railway and the Maison Dieu are not included.
Service Background
The museums included in this review are all operated by voluntary sector groups and staffed by unpaid volunteers. The buildings concerned are all listed and owned by the Borough Council who maintain them structurally. All museums except Minster Abbey Gatehouse are occupied under management agreements which continue from year to year but can be terminated by giving three months notice. Minster Abbey Gatehouse is let on a six year lease expiring on 31st August, 2010. The various voluntary groups are responsible for the museums’ running costs and interior maintenance and decorations.
The Council’s Building Maintenance team contracts the structural repairs through liaison with the Community Halls Supervisor and the Voluntary groups managing them. Further support and involvement is provided through the Arts and Facilities Officer who regularly attends meetings of the Swale Museums Group (a gathering of the Managers of all Swale’s Museums) and who resources the production of a publication produced annually to market the museums.
In addition to this the Council does occasionally consider grant applications from each of the museums groups occupying its buildings to help fund small projects such as new display equipment, temporary exhibitions, aids for disabled visitors and so on.
Challenge
The Council’s position regarding the delivery of museum services is presently a desirable one in terms of facilitating localised control and the involvement of the community in managing and staffing them. This is a very good demonstration of ‘subsidiarity’ at work. Value for money has to be considered even though the investment may be relatively low and the most significant factor in this are visitor numbers. Museums are one of the few leisure and cultural services included in the national performance indicators for local authorities. Annual visits per 1000 of the District population are used as the benchmark statistic and in Swale’s museums in 2000/2001, 138 out of 1000 of the population had visited a Swale Museum that year. In 2001/2002 this had risen slightly to 140/1000. From 2002/2003 onwards the figure reduced dramatically as the BVPI guidance was adjusted so that the number of visits that could be recorded had to relate to the Council’s investment. Consequently if as a Council we were contributing 20% or less of the overall running costs of the museum only 20% of the visitor numbers could be claimed and used in the PI return. The less support from the Council a museum requires the worse it, therefore, appears to be performing now. Logic would probably suggest the opposite should be the case and there is probably a case for Museums that require such low levels of support not be included in the indicators at all. This challenge has been given to the Audit Commission but there have been no national changes to date. Even before this PI recording quirk it was evident that Swale’s museums’ visitor numbers did not compare well with others in Kent.
21
Investment in building improvements
There remains a challenge to increase the investment if they are to remain open and to carry out a programme of improvements within the constraints of each historic site to allow better access for the disabled. The Council’s Building Manager will be visiting all Council owned museum premises and advising on access issues shortly. This should be reinforced as an outcome to this review.
How the Museums perform: -
Visits NATIONAL PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 All Districts Indicator actual actual actual actual Top Quartile 2001-02 737 in 5 museums owned by SBC up to Number of pupils st 31 visiting museums December and galleries in 0 250 2003 No organised school school visits groups. between December and end of March. a) The number of museums operated 6 6 5 5 by the authority (within definition) b) The percentage of that figure which are registered under the museums registration scheme 0% 0% 0% 0% administered by Resource (Museums, Libraries and Archives Council) a) The number of visits to/usage's of 138 140 39.6 40 museums per 1,000 population. b) The number of those visits that were 39.6 40 in person per 1,000 population.
22 Visitor numbers to each Museum in 2003 were:
Chart Gunpowder Mills 1,467 Open April to October Minster Abbey House 1,060 Open April to September Periwinkle Watermill 40 1 Day opening only Queenborough Guildhall 496 Open April to October Sheerness Heritage Centre 1,700 Open all year Court Hall 248 Open April to September
Cost. (£)
Budget Chart Mills Court Hall Minster Guildhall Rose Street Periwinkle Abbey Inc. office Heritage Water Mill Gatehouse lets Centre Services and 320 250 0 1730 900 0 Ins’ Rates 0 340 470 3,760 1,010 0 Building 0 500 500 4,200 250 0 M’tenance Grounds 0 500 300 0 0 0 M’tenance Printing and 0 0 100 100 0 0 promotion Support 2,890 2,630 3,100 2,420 2,580 1,460 Service recharge Dep’tion and 5,200 10 0 0 470 1,430 cap’ financing charge Income 0 0 0 3,130 0 0 (tenants) TOTAL 8,410 4,230 4470 10,770 5,210 2,890
Consult
As part of the public consultations for the production of the Cultural Strategy, 1076 Swale people were interviewed either face to face or over the phone. They were asked a range of questions about leisure and cultural provision in the Borough and the feedback provided informed us that when people were given the DCMS definition of cultural activities and asked to identify those areas that were important to them museums were identified by 2% of respondents and heritage by 1.8%. Parks and open spaces were the most important to people followed by Sports, TV, and Gardening. Museums were 14th. When asked to choose their most important area, if they had listed more than one, Museums were identified by 0.3% of those surveyed (3 people). Separately 519 visitors to the Borough were interviewed and when asked the same question museums were listed by 4.1% of respondents and identified as the most important by 4.2%. Again Parks and Open Spaces were identified as the top choice, museums being tenth.
As a consequence of this survey and other surveys carried out, for example, as part of the Youth Forum, Museums have not formed a high priority within the adopted Cultural Strategy for Swale and large investments in Cultural development in Swale as part of Swale Forward are tending to focus on the improvement of open spaces. The Council, therefore, continues to do as it has done for many years to assist the museums, as explained earlier, without seeking to enhance the service.
The Managers of the Museums have also been consulted about their aspirations for the museums, their views on having complete possession of the buildings, (independent from the
23 Council) and why they believe they offer a value for money service. A copy of the survey used is available upon request.
Without exception they all feel it would be impossible to survive if they actually owned the museums themselves and had to maintain them fully. They are generally satisfied with the way the Council maintains the structure of the buildings and for the assistance they have with some publicity.
Most recently the Sittingbourne Society has suggested, because of a lack of funding, that it would like to see the Periwinkle Water Mill included within and preserved as part of any development proposals that may come forward for the adjoining site (not owned by SBC). This is a realistic option for this site and could add to the attraction of a housing development.
Queenborough Town Council have shown an interest in the Guildhall and museum and have the potential to own and manage it themselves. There are further discussions to be had with the Town Council before the terms of such a transfer of the property can be detailed to Members. But this can be pursued if Members were minded to explore it further.
Compare
The Swale museums are very difficult to compare with other similar services. Each museum is very individual in its character.
Competition
Museums are part of the Borough’s attraction to tourists and an educational asset concerning the Borough’s heritage for all residents and visitors. In this context they have to compete with other attractions and educational facilities/tools to attract visitors. The growth of the internet has made it possible to access and research information in great detail. Arguably this could be a means of raising awareness of the Borough’s heritage without ever opening a museum and allow tours of the museums as they exist now. Non of the museums currently make detailed use of the internet as an alternative to a real site visit. This would require significant resourcing to make happen both in time and money. However, ‘virtual tours’ of museums are counted as visits for national performance data.
Best Value Assessment
Existing Council support reflects the lower level of priority for Museums within the Cultural strategy. The provision and maintenance of buildings enables volunteer organisations to function, without which the museums would not exist. The potential investment necessary to conform to the DDA requirements will need to be considered against the Councils priorities.
Where possible local groups/organisations should be encouraged to take over the buildings.
In relation to demand and usage, new initiatives need to be encouraged to improve visitor numbers.
Key measures of success/performance targets
See BVPI table above in the ‘Challenge’ section.
24 Major Issues
DDA requirements may increase financial costs to the Council which may in turn be unacceptable.
Low priority and usage would suggest consideration of withdrawal of funds (closure), however specialist nature of many buildings would find it difficult to attract other uses and buildings would still require on going maintenance. Current situation supports voluntary groups and contributes to promotion of the Borough’s Heritage.
Recommendations.
It is recommended that:
- Encouragement be given to secure a long term future for the Periwinkle Mill as part of any neighbouring development proposal. - Discussions take place with Queenborough Town Council with a view to agreeing draft terms for the transfer of the Guildhall to them. - The individual museums budgets be adjusted to better reflect the proportion of support and finance charges that should be made across them. - That the Swale Museums Group be encouraged to cost a proposal to enable virtual tours of their museums to take place. - That all Museums be surveyed and a programme of investments proposed for improving access for disabled visitors. - That all Swale Museums be now referred to within the Council’s service and budget heads as Local Heritage Centres to better reflect their variety and local management.
25 DISTRICT OFFICES
Purpose of the Review
The review is intended to inform discussions and policy decisions about the future of the District Offices at Faversham and Sheerness that currently provide a front counter service in both towns and some back Office services.
Scope
The review is confined to the Faversham District Office situated in the Alexander Centre, Preston Street and the Sheerness District Office in Trinity Road, Sheerness. As a consequence of reviewing the future of these offices, in turn also, the future of the services within them are reviewed. This includes the provision of a reception in each, the presence of a Customer Service Centre advisor at both receptions, an Office in Sheerness for the Arts and Facilities Manager and the Events Coordinator, Housing benefits services in both District Offices and Cemetery and Bus Pass services at both receptions.
In addition other rooms in both District Offices are let for private and voluntary sector Office space. These offices are also included in the scope of this review. The District Office at Faversham is part of the Alexander Centre. The public halls for hire in the Alexander Centre are part of a separate Best Value review but clearly relate to this one.
Service Background
The District Office buildings are both owned by Swale Borough. The building in Sheerness is sited on a public open space/garden area, part of which has been used for burials many years ago. The District Office in Faversham (the Alexander Centre) is a grade 2 listed building.
The Alexander Centre first became a public building following the death of Dr Alexander who left the building to the people of Faversham to be used as a public facility. The Centre has been operated by the Borough Council since Local Authority restructuring in 1974. It was acquired from the Faversham Town Council. Sheerness District Office was the home of the Sheerness Urban District Council and again was transferred to the Borough Council in 1974.
The rooms let to external organisations in the District offices are let on an annual basis. There are exceptions; in the Sheerness office Sharrock Insurance have a 12 year lease from 5/1/1999 and Sheppey Community Against Drugs have a lease for 3 years. In the Faversham Office Faversham Town Council have a lease for 14 years from 18/5/92. However, if there was a change of policy notice can be given by either party to terminate any of the leases within three months.
Challenge
Why and should the Council provide the service? The Council provides the service for convenience to local residents. It does not have to and technically the same services can be provided from a central location in the Borough for less cost. However, it has chosen to provide the District Offices and the services within them to allow local people to have face to face contact with Council staff concerning the most popular and impactive service enquiries. In particular Housing benefit services to consider and process housing benefit enquiries and cash offices as a means for local people to pay their community charge and other fees. These remain the most important elements of the service as far as local convenience is concerned.
Some services have been possible to withdraw from the District Offices. Building Regulations staff are a notable example. These are now all based in Swale House.
26 Total visits to the District Offices:
PERFORMANCE 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2003/04 2004/05 INDICATOR actual actual actual target to target DEFINITION March 2004 DISTRICT OFFICES Number of visits to 70,016 64,776 62,041 60,000 57,614 50,000 Faversham DO Number of visits to 80,334 72,557 85,194 80,000 80,715 75,000 Sheerness DO Costs/Visit £0.65 Faversham & Sheerness
Costs
In terms of costs of operating both Offices (not including the costs of staff time allocated to frontline services e.g Housing Benefit, Swale Festival) there is an original budgeted deficit this financial year of £4110 for Sheerness and £4110 for Faversham. However within the budgets for each District Office there is an income figure of £56,270 for Sheerness and £60,440 for Faversham. These two sums are Service recovery costs recharged to other services for the administration of the buildings. In considering the total extra costs in providing District services from Offices in Sheerness and Faversham therefore these figures should be added to the budgeted deficits. In doing so the annual costs for having a District Office at Faversham and Sheerness are:
Faversham - £64,550/annum Sheerness - £60,380/annum.
These costs have been relatively stable for a number of years, inflation allowing. These costs are challenged and in the management of the Buildings themselves costs have been kept down for replacement of furniture and internal decorations, for example. In addition costs of grounds maintenance have been saved at Faversham where the existing Hall Caretakers have been able to take on the work without contracting it out. There is an opportunity to save revenue costs but it is reliant upon significant capital investment. For example investment in more efficient and environmentally ways of heating the buildings and investment in structural and decorative repairs and renovations.
The proportion of visitors using either the Cashiers service or the Housing Benefit Offices seems to demonstrate that there is a clear local need to retain these services in the same or a similar format at a local level. The survey referred to later quantifies this usage.
In accepting this it then follows that the Council should consider who should manage those services, who should provide them and where should they be based locally? While the Council can ensure that they are provided it does not have to operate the services directly and can agree arrangements with others to do so.
The buildings are obviously a considerable cost to operate and this is another consideration in terms of challenging the status quo. Whilst their sale value may seem attractive and relocating and rationalising potentially could reduce the demands on the Council’s revenue budget, the facts when challenged are less clear.
Selling the District Office in Faversham on the commercial market is unlikely to be a serious option. There is strong local support for the retention of the public halls contained in the building (which require revenue support annually) and the property cannot be divided for sale purposes. The more realistic options are to sell or lease the property to another organisation prepared to manage the halls and the Office space in the building if we are not the most cost
27 effective and organisation to be managing it ourselves. Discussions are taking place with Faversham Town Council concerning the operation of the public halls and they would like to also include the rest of the building in those discussions. Outcomes from those discussions and proposals can therefore be put to Members if it is felt that they may be worth consideration.
Selling the District Office in Sheerness is more feasible and becomes a more ‘straightforward’ project to find alternative premises for the essential services that need to be retained and for the tenants to find alternative premises. These include the Cashiers and Housing Benefit services and there is also a need for somewhere for the Car Park Inspectors to be based and the use of a meeting room for Planning surgeries one day/week.
Leasing a retail unit in the town centres large enough to house the minimum District service need (a small housing benefits team, a cashiers office, two small meeting rooms and a Customer service centre member of staff) requires about 60 m2 of floor space. The Estates Officer estimates that if accessible space was available locally it would cost approximately £2500/annum to rent in Sheerness and £3500/annum in Faversham. This would not include service charges which would total approximately £8000 - £10000 for each Office. (Services and Rates).
Given this are any savings possible over the existing District office revenue costs? Savings do not seem to be possible in terms of overall budget position. The reasons for this are that the Council may be able not have to redistribute some of the recharges currently made to the District Offices across other assets it has. (These include Capital Financing and Depreciation Charges which total £9760 for Sheerness and £11820 for Faversham) which would be a saving but it would lose the income it currently receives from tenants. £14,630/annum for Faversham District office and £15,830/annum for Sheerness District Office.
Given the Council’s need, therefore, to have office space in Faversham and Sheerness it is clear that any new space (if leased) would, once budget adjustments were made, not represent any significant revenue saving to the Council. Only the capital aspects of the change would seem to have benefits. The buildings most realistic commercial use is as Office space. Given their locations, listed status (Alexander Centre) and lack of alternative development potential (both are in conservation areas) their flexibility and therefore value is restricted. Sheerness has an asset value, currently, of £200,000 but this would be affected by the leases currently in place. If the leases could not be re negotiated to a satisfactory surrender position then the building would have to be sold with tenants in occupation. This often reduces the capital value unless the potential new owner is buying to let. However, the Council could realise a sum of approximately £200,000 providing it chose to lease and not reinvest in and buy alternative new premises. As has been acknowledged earlier, selling Faversham District Office is more difficult and not a realistic option.
These reasonably brief financial challenges do not suggest that there are significant benefits in moving offices other than an initial capital receipt. Beyond this revenue savings only become possible if the services that are required (Housing benefit and Cashiers) can make savings themselves at a District Office level by reducing the staff required to deliver a similar level of service.
Consultation
The Council have recently conducted a survey of 282 people who used the District Offices over a period of two weeks in late August/early September 2004. A copy of the survey is available upon request. Analysis of the survey enables us to draw the following conclusions about peoples’ views of the District Offices:
At Faversham: - Nearly all those visiting the District Office were doing so to make an enquiry with the Council as opposed to visit one of the tenants.
28 - 12% of those interviewed would like to see the opening hours extended. The most popular hours proposed were lunchtimes - Of those who expressed an opinion about why they chose to come to the District Office (about 3%) the reasons most often used were prefer face to face discussion, it’s the nearest office and ‘help with forms to complete’ - 65% had used the CSC before and 75% of these were happy with the experience. 4% were not happy and gave long delays as the reason. The remainder had no comment. - 2% claimed that the CSC at Swale House was unable to help with their enquiry. The reasons given were that they needed to ‘produce Personal Identification details’ and ‘delays and call costs’. - 96% of those completing the surveys were over 40 years old - 80% of those using the District Office had come to pay their community charge, 9% to enquire about housing benefit, 2% to pay a parking penalty, 2% about a bus pass (seasonal issue), 2% to book a hall, 0% about a planning enquiry, 5% about a cleansing enquiry and 0% about the last choice, which was a homeless enquiry. - Other enquiries were to enquire about tax, ask about the electoral register, enquire about a cemetery burial, obtain a toilet key (RADAR key) - Means of transport to access the District Office consisted of car - 35%, on foot – 55%, bus – 8%, train – 1%, bicycle – 1%. - 90% of visitors were from Faversham town, the remainder were mainly from surrounding villages - 10% visited the office weekly, 15% had not visited before or had visited very irregularly, the remainder – 75% visited monthly - 94% of those that had visited were satisfied with the service. - Of those 6% who were dissatisfied with the service 1% said it was too slow, 1% said the receptionist kept being distracted by the phone, 1% said the Council tax was too high, 1% said their enquiry was still not resolved and 2% said the staff were grumpy. - All but one person thought it was very important keep the District offices open for paying the community charge, buying buss passes, obtaining a hall booking, making an enquiry about Planning and Building Regulations, enquiring about a cleansing issue, housing benefit and homelessness. - The reasons given for the above were overwhelmingly travel related (respondents, therefore, were assuming they would still have to visit a Council Office to resolve certain enquiries that they would have in the future)
At Sheerness: results to be assessed
Comparison
In terms of efficiency it is very difficult to compare this service with any others offered by other District Councils. Canterbury District is a similarly dispersed area with two major District towns away from Canterbury. Officers there have been unable to help with meaningful cost comparisons but Canterbury does offer similar services to Swale at its Herne Bay and Whitstable Offices.
In Tenterden, Ashford District Council has trialed a new ‘pay point’ cashiers service where the Council has an agreement with a number of retailers for them to offer a community charge payment service to residents. Swale’s Head of Service for Finance is in discussion with Ashford District Council about the outcomes of that trial.
Competition
As has been referred to earlier there is another potential public sector partner that may be able to compete successfully for the management of the Faversham District Office. Faversham Town Council have shown an interest in acquiring the whole of the Alexander Centre including the Public Halls. Such an arrangement may involve the Borough Council selling or relinquishing the freehold of the building to the Town Council and renting part of it back again to continue to offer District based counter service. In both towns there are public sector partners who are operating ‘district offices’ of their own, namely the Police and the Amicus Group. Both have shown an interest in offering our joint
29 services from the same location. The Police have said that potentially they have the capacity to meet our District Office space needs in the Sheerness Police Station and it is currently due for a reception over – haul. Similarly Amicus may have space within their Offices on the Broadway. Neither of them are likely to have space in their Faversham bases.
Neither of these options is likely to lead to revenue savings when compared to any other commercial office let but may have some advantages in terms of customer convenience and access, particularly with regard to the Amicus offices. However, discussions have not progressed yet and, bearing in mind the high volume of Housing benefit business, they may not be keen to be associated with this, given the difficulties of recent years.
Best Value Assessment
There appears to be little/marginal revenue benefit to the Authority in disposing or transferring the District offices into other ownerships. However, the situations of the 2 offices are different.
Sheerness: disposal here is more straightforward and advantageous (in terms of a capital receipt) and could contribute to a potential regeneration of the Trinity Road site including adjacent buildings which would be of considerable benefit to the town.
Faversham Office is constrained, but there does appear to be enthusiasm from Faversham Town Council to regain ownership of the whole building including he hall.
Local service provision: It is Council policy to retain direct local access to Housing benefit staff and this demand is reflected in the recent survey. The latter also confirms demand for cash facilities and service access. Options and alternatives for cash payments are being investigated while the consolidation of service availability through the CSC will continue to allow wider access through one point of contact. Location options for these services (and accommodation for car park personnel and planning consultations) must then be determined from the alternatives mentioned above.
Major Issues
Access to services required locally (particularly Housing benefits & cash payments)
District Offices – subject to further investigation are not the most cost effective means of delivering them
Alternative provision including sale/transfer of ownership of District Offices, smaller ‘retail’ type premises or hosting by relevant partners organisations should be further investigated.
Recommendations
- It is recommended that the Council reinforces its commitment to providing housing benefit specialist staff at both Faversham and Sheerness based Offices. - That progress be made to enable CSC staff based at District Offices to deal with all enquiries relating to cemeteries, bus passes, hall bookings, cleansing, the electoral register, sports pitch bookings - A direct line be available and maintained to the Homeless team at Swale House. - Festival and event services be located and managed from Swale House - Discussions be concluded with Ashford DC on the success or otherwise of their pay point service and Officers prepare a report on its potential to be applied in Faversham and Sheerness - Discussions continue with Faversham Town Council on the potential for them to acquire the Alexander Centre and the options for the terms of their acquisition be reported to Members. - That space still be maintained in District Offices to accommodate Parking Inspectors during their breaks and an Office for Planning consultations one day/week.
30 - Dependent upon the outcome of the ‘Paypoint pilot’ in Tenterden and Members being supportive of it for Swale, - continue discussions with the Police and Amicus concerning alternative Office space needs in Sheerness for remaining services’ staff.
31 ALEXANDER CENTRE - HALLS
Purpose of the Review
The review is intended to inform discussions and policy decisions about the future of the Alexander Centre in order to provide best value for local people.
Scope
The review is confined to the Alexander Centre Halls, the Alexander Centre, Preston Street only. The other halls that the Council manage/managed have already all gone through a Best Value review in the last three years. This included the Kemsley Concert Hall which resulted in a local trust leasing the hall and managing it themselves, the Murston Welfare Hall which resulted in the lease from Kent County Council being relinquished and the building being occupied in turn by a pre-school nursery and the Queenborough and King Georges Halls being retained in the present form by the Borough Council.
Service Background.
The provision of public halls is consistent with the Council’s commitment to promote leisure and encourage cultural development as part of its Cultural Strategy and Community Plan.
The halls are currently a financial loss making service which the Council has been prepared to subsidise in order to promote usage by a broad range of groups and encourage new community activities. This is encouraged by keeping fees and charges relatively low and competitive.
The Alexander Centre first became a public building following the death of Dr Alexander who left the building to the people of Faversham to be used as a public facility. The Centre has been operated by the Borough Council since Local Authority restructuring in 1974. It was acquired from the Faversham Town Council and at a later stage the ‘new’ Gatefield Hall was added to the Centre following the loss of the Institute Hall which once backed onto Institute Road in Faversham.
The Alexander Centre consists of many rooms, some of which are occupied as Offices for the Voluntary sector, some of which are occupied by Borough Council staff offering District based services and some of which are occupied by the Town Council. These services are not part of this review but the impact of this review of the Halls upon them will need to be considered under any options for changes proposed.
The Halls consist of three rooms for hire (the Sydney, Batterbee and Jubilee Rooms) each with a small kitchen space and a main performance hall (the Gatefield Hall with a commercial size kitchen attached and adjoining bar and cloakroom space
The Hall and rooms are used for a mixture of meetings, conferences, performances, community events (blood donoring, flower demonstrations etc) tutored activities, social celebrations and exhibitions. Some constraints are placed on the use of the Halls in order to minimise local noise pollution for example. Generally the present conditions which are open to change are as follows:
The Councils music and dancing licence in the halls does not allow dancing after midnight Mondays to Thursdays and up to 1am on Fridays and 12 midnight on Saturdays. Music and dancing is not permitted on Sundays and Good Fridays.
50% of the hiring fee is payable on booking which is currently undertaken through staff at the reception desk of Faversham District Office.
32 Challenge
In challenging the way the facility is operated costs and alternative methods have to be considered. The recommendations in this report detail the challenges which Members may wish to consider.
Excellence in service - having not had an independent body examine this, part of the assessment can be made from comments from Customers…
Value for money - In terms of the Alexander Halls’ overall budget cost there is a budget provision for a £89,940 deficit this financial year. This includes a £3200 surplus for the Bar. Budget heads are as follows:
Services £ 24,390 Supplies £ 05,910 Internal charges £ 60,720 Financing charges £ 36,450 Income £(37,530)
Total £ 89,940.
The deficit equates to a contribution per head of population in Swale of 72p/person/annum irrespective of personal use of the halls. Obviously if this is equated to the residents of Faversham alone, (the realistic market and beneficiaries) the subsidy/head is much higher. The major costs which contribute to the deficit are £60,380 for support service recharges (Caretaking staff salaries and proportions of management time), £36,450 for Depreciation and capital finance charges and £5000 for buildings maintenance.
In terms of value for money for hirers the fees and charges made (available upon request) are generally regarded as representing value for money. In a recent survey undertaken involving 73 customers 31% said that they would pay more for the Halls. The remaining majority would not. Usage of the hall, identified below as booking numbers, seems to suggest that we should not be raising hiring charges given the position that they were at between 2000 and 2002.
HALL BOOKING FIGURES - ALEXANDER CENTRE - 1999-2004 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 April 47 40 65 46 49 57 May 51 47 72 67 66 68 June 63 56 70 55 56 66 July 66 65 63 42 37 56 August 37 28 33 33 32 42 September 46 61 56 54 55 80 October 60 66 74 56 66 77 November 55 80 60 61 58 December 36 48 49 42 41 January 61 49 62 53 52 February 41 62 59 68 56 March 64 74 65 56 69
TOTAL 627 676 728 633 637 Booking numbers are reasonably stable and most importantly so is income.
33
Involvement - The Council currently employs 2 full time Caretakers, an as and when needed relief caretakers and a cleaner to operate the Alexander Centre halls. The Halls Supervisor contributes some of his time to them as does the Arts and Facilities Manager and the Chief Community Services Officer. Two full time Caretakers are necessary because of the length of time the Halls are open for business and the need for health and safety reasons to employ two persons to move equipment and carry out certain other maintenance tasks. There are no volunteers working within the Halls but customers are regularly invited to comment on service quality. Other Council Officers are regularly involved with the Hall, especially the Building Maintenance team.
Corporate priorities - As part of its commitment to the Community Plan the Council has as one of its three vision statements the aim to have ‘a thriving community’ in Swale. That aim is divided into three elements; creating a place where everyone feels they belong, healthy people and a fun place to be.
The provision of public halls at the Alexander Centre Halls is consistent with these objectives.
Sustainability - By testing the Halls against a range of sustainability indicators it is evident that they:
• Improve the sense of community in the Faversham area • Reduce the need for the local population to travel • Do not require extension into a green-field site • Enhance the quality of the built environment (Listed Building) • Improve the distinctiveness and range of facilities in Faversham • Consider the timing of operations so as to reduce noise pollution • Improves access to facilities for health (mental health benefit) • Provides a healthy and safe working environment for staff • Provides employment directly and indirectly for local people • Encourages investment in skills among the local community • Assists people on low incomes and disadvantaged groups • Increases access to and the range of arts, cultural and leisure pursuits
Less clear and where there is room for improvement is in respect of:
• Helping to deliver targets set in the Community Safety Strategy • Minimising energy and water use • Measures to reduce, recycle and re-use • Using renewable energy technology • Consideration of the use of chemicals released into the environment • Helping local community based businesses to set up • Encouraging local businesses to increase their competitiveness through environmental management • Increasing facilities and opportunities for disabled people • Promoting racial and religious harmony and understanding
Equal Opportunities - The Councils Disabilities Access Officer has produced a report of the improvements which should be made to the Halls and the rest of the Alexander Centre to encourage and improve access for disabled persons. They include some specific lighting enhancements, new and increased signage, guide ‘noses’ on the main staircase and more vivid paintwork in certain key areas.Investment in these improvements has begun and 80% of the identified works have been completed. Outstanding items are mainly due to awaiting delivery of equipment from suppliers.
34 In terms of minority racial use of the halls nothing has been done to actively promote this. At present there are no minority racial groups using the halls. The population of Faversham is 98% white British and as a consequence the undiverse racial use of the hall is probably consistent with that population. By talking to a Swale based ethnic minorities community group linked to the Community Safety plan we will establish if active measures should be pursued to involve racial minorities.
Consultation
Regular consultation is carried out with customers in the form of service quality surveys which customers are encouraged to return after they hire the halls. The feedback below is a summary of Customers views:
ALEXANDER CENTRE
No. Question Yes No Yes % No % 1 How did you find out about the halls? Local Know. 64 Word of Mouth 7 Advert 2 2 Have you hired them before? 51 22 70% 30% 3 Which ones have you hired before? Alexander Centre 54 Guildhall 7 4 Would you hire hall again? 33 2 94% 6% 5 Satisfied with ease of booking? 72 1 99% 1% 6 Conditions of hire easy to understand? 69 3 96% 4% 7 Hall - Value for money 65 7 90% 10% 8 Satisfied with condition of hall? 68 5 93% 7% 9 Satisfied with cleanliness? 72 1 99% 1% 10 Best aspects of the hall service ?:- Locality and parking 14% Friendly and helpful caretaker and staff 48% Availability 2% Clean - Comfortable - Warm 2% Acoustics 2% Appearance 3% Value for money 2% Lighting 3% Ground floor access 2% Booking 7% Size 8% Facilities - seating/tables/kitchen etc. 7% 11 Did you consider the staff helpful? 73 100% 12 What did you think of bar facilities?
35 Good 12% Quite good 29% Very good 35% Bad 6% Not enough staff 6% Not the best beer 6% Limited choice of drinks 6% No. Question Yes No Yes% No % 13 What improvements would you like to see? More electrical sockets Better lighting - better stage lighting Redecoration Bigger bar and more bar staff Hot water Lounge seats made higher for elderly/disabled Open later on Saturday nights Being able to book either Sat. morning or afternoon Better rates for charities Better loop system Better control over central heating/air conditioning Kitchen needs cleaning thoroughly Car park closer to hall Larger rooms/Better kitchen facilities Lift for the elderly Private function sign Sunday hire 14 What facilities would you like to see? Overhead projector - screen More cooking utensils/crockery Boards for flipcharts - White boards Better kitchen facilities TV/video Sound System/P.A. System 15 Would you be prepared to pay more? 31% 69% Responses 73 17/09/03
36 A non user survey (undertaken by Foster and Brown Research September 2002) suggested that adult education classes, 5 a side football, children clubs, whist drives may encourage usage from non users.
The issues for improvement relate to what some customers may have experienced in other halls and feel is missing from the Alexander Centre halls. For example equipment that could be available for hire in the halls (TV/Radio, flipcharts, overhead projector). At present the emphasis is upon the customer to supply these themselves should they need them. It would be possible to store equipment like this on site and reserve/provide it through the regular booking system. It is unlikely though that it would pay for itself or the costs of later replacements. Other changes could be made such as replacing furniture not suited to elderly/disabled persons and allowing use of the Hall on a Sunday. The cost and staffing implications of at least piloting this increased weekend service, can be researched and reported back on if Members wished but at present, because of the logistics of clearing up after Saturday evening events Sunday bookings are not currently taken.
A meeting was also held in the Alexander Centre recently with regular customers, Town and Borough Councillors and other interested parties with the purpose of discussing the possible future uses of the Halls. 42 people attended and the outcome to that meeting is available upon request.
In summary there was strong support for the continued use of the space in the Alexander Centre for community halls and much debate about the loss of other public halls in Faversham since 1974. There was less clarity about the management of the halls and in particular the organisation best placed to manage them. It was felt that other local organisations in Faversham should be approached to explore whether or not there is sufficient interest, and of course benefit, to justify changing the operational management of the halls. It was suggested that Faversham Town Council, Faversham Pools Trust and Faversham Enterprise Board should all be approached as potential managers and this has been done. Faversham Town Council have shown an interest in managing the halls but are also considering making a request to Swale to acquire the whole Alexander Centre as they see the Halls function and the remaining Offices in the building as being closely linked. Further discussions can take place with Faversham Town Council if Members wish to examine the details of any joint proposal that can be prepared.
Comparison
Some research has been carried out among the Council’s Best Value Group and other District Councils in Kent. As might be expected with a non statutory service there is a very mixed style of local provision of community halls. From the feedback that has been received, Shepway, for example, do not own or manage any halls but do offer occasional grants to other organisations to build and manage them. Tonbridge and Malling also do not operate stand alone community halls but do operate a hireable hall as part of the Angel Centre in Tonbridge. They also provide grants to Parishes and community organisations who manage their own facilities. Canterbury own and operate two Halls; the Kings Hall in Herne Bay and the Westgate Hall in Canterbury. They also grant aid other organisations managing community halls. Dartford Borough Council own four community halls and two are operated by the Council.
In terms of hiring fee comparisons Dartford, for example, has three different charging structures for its Temple Hill Community Centre and charges by the hour only (not by the half day or day). A rate of £6.95/hr is charged for voluntary groups delivering regular community activities in the main Hall, a rate of 21.32/hr is charged for casual hirings for the whole centre for conferences, meetings, exhibitions etc and a rate of £11.45/hr is charged for non voluntary sector groups hiring the main hall.
The charges are generally increased by 25% for Friday evening and Saturdays. Sunday and bank holiday hirings are available at nearly twice the standard rates including Christmas Eve and New Years Eve.
37 The main Hall at Temple Hill is capable of seating 175 people and has kitchen and lounge facilities to hire separately. £4.10/hr and £4.42/hr being the standard rates respectively.
In comparison the Alexander Centre Halls’ charges (available upon request) also have a range of charges:
The main Gatefield Hall is capable of seating 220 people for a conference with a full stage and is available to voluntary groups/amateur societies for 12.25/hr, Mon – Thurs for minimum periods of 2 hours. £14.50/hr is the rate charged to other organisations. Fridays and Saturdays are only available for a daily rate of £61.00 to voluntary groups and £81.00 to others. Sunday, Bank Holiday and New Years Eve hirings are available at three times the Saturday all day rates.
The Gatefield, Batterbee and Sydney Rooms compare with the lounge at the Temple Hill Centre in Dartford (the Sydney Room being smaller than the other two). The charges for these rooms are approximately 90% higher than those charged for the lounge at the Temple Hill Centre.
It is very difficult to compare venues as each are quite different even though their capacities are similar. Certainly the Hall charges at the Alexander Centre are significantly higher than those at Dartford. Clearly our Sunday charges deter most hirers and should be reconsidered if Sunday custom is to be attracted.
Competition
The competition is in terms of competition for custom from other similar venues in the catchment area and potentially competition in terms of operation and management.
In Faversham there are no venues comparable with the Gatefield Hall, its facilities and capacity. Shepherd Neame have a small hall that they let for public functions and the Fleur de Lys Heritage Centre also have a small hall available for public functions. Both of these halls are on first floors with no proper disabled access provision at the Shepherd Neame whereas access for disabled persons is via a lift in the car park behind the Fleur Hall. In addition there are some Church Halls and School Halls available for public hire. The School halls are obviously restricted to public use outside normal school hours.
Best Value Assessment
As has been previously stressed the future of the Alexander Centre Halls are also very connected with the future of the District Office service in Faversham. The presence of Faversham Town Council in the Alexander Centre and the encouragement from Government and the Borough Council for Parish Councils to broaden their role and responsibilities provides the underlying policy drive for the Town Council to manage the Halls there. This is further supported by local consultations that have taken place with Hall users, the Town Council themselves and other potential managing bodies. There is less clarity about the potential financial position and possible efficiency savings involved in any transfer of the property and responsibilities. The Borough Council is in the process of identifying efficiency savings as part of its Gershon review and this must be considered alongside this BV review and any future exploration of the transfer of the Halls to Faversham Town Council. Clearly there are more negotiations that would need to take place with Faversham Town Council before the draft terms of an agreement are able to inform the level of any efficiency savings. However, this would seem to be worth pursuing and making clear so that a final decision can be made on the service.
Apart from the issue of service transfer consideration should be given to the efficiencies of the building itself and the way the service is managed. There would seem scope to try and reduce energy consumption costs given some research and investment in the building. Also bookings may be increased with longer opening hours
38
Key Measures of success/Performance Targets
The services success is based upon measuring booking numbers, expenditure and income levels and (connected to a national BVPI) the efficiency of energy consumption for heating and lighting the building. In addition accessibility is a key issue and most obviously for disabled users.
Recommendations
- Continue negotiations with potential partners to manage the halls, in particular Faversham Town Council and report back on potential terms for agreement.
Depending on progress of the above:
- Retain provision of the Gatefield Hall, bar, Jubilee Room and Sydney Room as public facilities. - Bring forward a report to consider alternative uses for the Batterbee Room or disabled access provisions given access difficulties to first floor. - Cost a proposal to provide a hall booking service on Saturdays and to provide an equipment hiring service to the halls. - Consult local residents and the Entertainment licencing officers on increasing Sunday usage and review the charges for Sundays and Bank Holidays. - Report on the resources required to appoint a suitably qualified Surveyor to produce a costed plan for upgrading the Halls’ in an effort to register for EMAS or ISO140001 accreditation.
39 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Purpose of the Review
The Council wishes to examine the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICE to identify what it is achieving for local people and how it supports the achievement of the aims of the Council.
Scope
The review covers the work/role of the Community Development Service as represented by one full time Community Development Officer since 1998 - and since March 04, one full time assistant. There is admin support provided but no dedicated CD support budget.
What is Community Development?
The Community Development Foundation describes Community Development as:- a range of practices dedicated to increasing the strength and effectiveness of community life, improving local conditions, especially for people in disadvantaged situations, and enabling people to participate in public decision-making and to achieve greater long-term control over their circumstances.
Community life means activities undertaken voluntarily by people pursuing common interests, improving shared conditions or representing joint concerns. Community activity nurtures human bonds and forms of mutual aid and social capital which neither the state nor the market can provide. One of the main outcomes of effective community life is a rich landscape of community and voluntary organisations
Community development is a proven technique for fostering more and more effective community activity. The professional practice of community development has aspired to empower people, to overcome exclusion and to enable people to control their local conditions. However, limited funding has often meant that professional community development has been involved in short-term projects or low-status auxiliary services. A modernised community development approach, better resourced through regeneration programmes and local government reform, links empowerment with building civil society and social capital, and complements, through people’s autonomous activities, a range of public service and development initiatives.
Professional community development works at four levels:
• with individual residents, to help them become more active; • with local groups or organisations, to help them develop and be more effective; • with the network of groups and organisations, to help them co-operate and gain collective strength; • with public authorities, professional agencies and the business sector, to help them understand the dynamics of community life, to broker their support and help them deliver their own services in ways which better meet the needs of communities.
All of these contribute to the combined goal of sustainable local development.
40 Service Focus
Professional community development works at four levels:
• work with individual residents, to help them become more active;
Commentary
Until very recently the Community Development Service appears to have done the least in this area. This is perhaps unsurprising when taking account of the size of Swale and the limited human resources available.
Within the last year the service has made deliberate links with and has supported bids by Social Landlords for funding related to neighbourhood renewal in Swale (East Hall Farm).
This follows on from efforts to explore the further development of neighbourhood action plans targeting the most deprived neighbourhoods in Swale (as defined by the Swale Community Plan).
Most recently a combination of SEEDA & SBC (planning delivery grant) have provided the funding for a Community Development Worker to enable residents’ / community engagement with the major redevelopment of Queenborough Rushenden as part of the Thames Gateway expansion.
The service has specifically supported the needs of projects in local neighbourhoods and villages (Sheppey Youth Action, Rushenden Care House, Murston Project, Milton Project, Doddington Discovery Club etc)
• work with local groups or organisations, to help them develop and be more effective;
Stronger community organisations means stronger communities and greater community participation and engagement. A wide range of groups / organisations have been supported with a range of support from advice and assistance, help with funding and external funding, to direct project management.
Organisations that have developed with such support include the Swale CVS, Sheppey Matters, Faversham Community Café, Hope in the Community Sheerness, Sure Start, Sheppey Youth Action, Swale Mediation Service, Rushenden Care House, Murston Project, Milton Project, Doddington Discovery Club, Kings Nursery and most recently work with organisations in Conyer and North Preston etc.
The service is inevitably restricted by resources in providing support on a routine and wide-ranging basis and has taken a more strategic approach, which is based on supporting the further development of local voluntary sector infrastructure (CVS/ Community Hubs/ COMPACT).
Links are also well developed with the Councils External Funding Officer, Economic & Rural Development, Arts and Leisure staff ensuring the broadest range of support is harnessed.
In addition the CD service administers many of the Councils grants to voluntary organisations service including the annual scheme and the Queenborough Fisheries Trust Scheme and supports other schemes such as Global Grants (ESF).
41 • Work with the network of groups and organisations, to help them co-operate and gain collective strength;
A primary concern has been to ensure co-ordination, to avoid duplication, maximise resources and ensure stronger and more effective responses.
The service has organised events to bring groups together in partnership with the CVS & Amicus (‘Partners in the Community’ Days).
It has also taken the lead in ensuring the development of key networks and fora including:
The Compact Steering Group, Community Enterprise Hubs Steering Group, Advice Agencies Liaison Meeting, Youth Strategy Group, Swale Youth Forum (including Annual Youth Conference), Faversham Forward, Faversham Community Learning Network, the Swale Voluntary Sector Forum (run by the CVS) and the Summer Holiday Schemes Network (including securing multi-agency funding for a Summer Programme Co-Ordinator).
• Work with public authorities, professional agencies and the business sector, to help them understand the dynamics of community life, to broker their support and help them deliver their own services in ways which better meet the needs of communities.
As a service based in a local authority you should expect to see considerable activity in this area. Brokerage has been particularly prevalent with Community Development providing a definable point of access into the Council for community partners.
The service also provides Council Depts / officers with a locus on social exclusion issues, as well as professional advice and direct assistance on communications and consultation methods, directly enabling their working links with outside bodies.
In line with the above, the service plays a lead role in the development of partnership working with the Council, including the Local Strategic Partnership, the Crime & Disorder Reduction Partnership, Swale COMPACT group, Swale Youth Forum and the Swale Children’s Consortium, plus Swale Obesity Strategy lead by the PCT.
In-house brokerage includes managing the resulting cross cutting links with Council Departments including Leisure, Sports, Planning and Housing and ensuring links to the ODPM Gateway developments via Swale Forward and KCC.
The service has advised regional and local strategic institutions including SEEDA, the Learning and Skills Council, North Kent Legal Services Partnership, Kent County Council, Kent Learning Alliance, North Kent Gateway Partnership, GOSE LSP Forum and Kent Children’s Strategy Executive and Kent County Council (most recently re LAA’s).
CD has been the principal agent working sub-regionally to secure and enable regeneration resources aimed at local community development / social exclusion. These include securing an SRB and Sure Start programme for Swale, supporting Lottery bids for the local Healthy Living Centres, and supporting the development and delivery of Children’s Centres and the Children’s Fund in Swale. It has been actively working to assist the ’sustainable communities’ strand of the Swale Forward / ODPM programme include Community Enterprise Hubs, Community Learning Centres, the Queenborough Rushenden regeneration and underspend proposals
42 Links are also well developed with the Council’s External Funding Officer, Economic & Rural Development, Arts and Leisure staff ensuring the broadest range of support is harnessed.
In addition the CD service administers some of the Councils grants to voluntary organisations service including the Council annual scheme, the CAB SLA and the Queenborough Fisheries Trust Scheme as well enabling the CVS SLA (with Swale Forward).
Challenge
Is the service needed?
The direction of government policy related to ‘modernising local government’ calls for a more outward looking approach, related to extending local democracy and community governance.
This extends the traditional role of the Council to provide ‘community leadership’ and embrace all issues of community need and concern in a way that specifically enables community engagement and involvement.
Community Development approaches provided through CD practitioners are increasingly employed to enable LA’s to move forward into these new arenas.
The agenda of work as given above and the level of demand (both internally and externally generated) indicate that the CD service is needed to ensure that in particular community capital is developed and ‘community engagement’ is extended.
Does it address the right needs?
It does appear that much of the inherited agenda related to objective 2 (‘work with local groups to help them develop’).
Over the past 12 months the service has re-focussed on how the resources can be best applied to enable more strategic responses to social exclusion and disadvantage in Swale.
This implied the need to maximise networking and brokerage activity, and the service has been very successful in enabling progress on a range of related areas including LSP development, voluntary sector development, children’s service development, youth services development, and neighbourhood renewal activity.
However, the inception of 3 new posts has enabled the Council to maintain a direct customer or project support focus in specific areas including Community Enterprise Hubs, Queenborough Neighbourhood Renewal and generically through the Assistant CD Officer post.
Current key areas of work / objectives include
• Continued lead on Voluntary Sector Development
• Continued lead on Youth Strategy Development
• Continued lead on Childrens’ Service Development
• Continued support to development of partnership working focussed on addressing social exclusion (particularly LSP/SF)
In terms of need for an upgraded response the following areas are particular concerns
• More work related to development and support for young people
43
• Greater focus on neighbourhood renewal
• Focus on rural disadvantage
• Possibly social enterprise development
• Re-organisation of SBC Grants services
It will be difficult for the service to respond however without additional resources (either based at the Council or attracted for other partners). Examples of resource needs in these areas include
• A (jointly funded) co-ordinator post for the LSP would relieve pressure on the CD service and create the right basis for further development of the LSP including PSA & LAA work.
• A (jointly funded) post working to take forward the Youth Forum / manage the Youth Strategy.
• CD workers to produce neighbourhood action plans / co-ordinate multi-agency efforts to disadvantaged neighbourhoods / for ‘parish plan’ type approaches
• Social Enterprise Development post (possibly in conjunction with the economic development service).
Are there other ways of providing it?
1. The following options have been considered:
• To do nothing – Community Development provides a cross-cutting, strategic and direct interface between the Council, statutory and voluntary organisations on wide ranging issues related to social development and extending democracy. If there was no service these links would be less fluid, leading to reducing contact and awareness, less (internal & external) co- ordination and reduced opportunities for local development and engagement.
• To provide the service externally through consultants – Elements of delivery have been provided through consultancy (i.e. Planning for Real) but as an option for the whole service it would prove high cost and less effective in terms of enabling and managing cross-cutting and strategic approaches.
• To externalise the existing service in full – the local authority is identified as the locus for community leadership, as it is uniquely positioned to pull together local agents in partnership to improve the quality of life for all residents. In-house Community Development services are central to this task, brokering partnership for change and engaging the community in the process. These ‘community governance’ objectives relate directly to the perception of the Council as ‘active in the community’ through delivering a Council-owned CD service, and community feedback demonstrates support for the retention in-house of such services for these reasons (see below).
• To devolve to Parish/Town Councils - There is no dedicated operational Community Development budget therefore full devolvement would entail redundancy of staff (2) and equivalent costs shared across 1st tier authorities. The resulting financial resources would not be considered to offer equivalent value. Devolvement would cause the loss of Council’s strategic community leadership function as identified above including the partnership
44 and brokerage function which in turn generates resource for local neighbourhood areas as well as the loss of maintaining local networks e.g. youth, children’s service development LSP etc
Consultation
As part of the review the Council sent out a service questionnaire to a random sample of (approx 28) internal and external customers. 19 responses were received, 11 from the voluntary and 8 from the statutory sector (2 of these ‘in-house’).
SERVICE STATUTOR STATUTO VOL SECTOR VOL TOTAL FOCUS Y RY Top priority SECTOR S Top priority Next Next priority priority Active X X 2 XX 2 4 residents Develop local XX X 3 XXXXXX XX 8 11 orgs Services co- XX X 3 XXXX XXXX 8 11 ord / network development Partnership XX XXX 5 XXXX 4 9 dev / strategic brokerage 13 22 35 WHO should provide the service ? COUNCIL xxxx 4 xxxxxxxxxxx 11 15 OTHER 0 0 0
Results
SERVICE FOCUS
The table above shows most support for ‘support to local organisations’ and ‘services co- ordination’.
Statutory customers gave greatest overall priority to the CD ‘brokerage / partnership development’ service, whilst voluntary groups tended to prioritise local groups’ needs.
However the results show general support for the current direction of the service.
WHO SHOULD PROVIDE THE SERVICE?
15 of the 19 responded to this question. All felt that the Council should continue to provide the service. Comments included
‘continue to offer the service to local orgs…and also to prevent duplication of services’
‘delighted with the partnership workers with the Swale Community Development Team’
‘I feel that within the past 12 months CD in Swale has been brought to the fore, & is being dealt with in a professional and useful way’
‘my experience of working with SBC’s CD is very positive. The Team is pro-active and productive on behalf of the local community’
‘continue the service & possibly increase the staffing ratios’
45
‘to offer a wider variety through the CD dept the dept would need to expand with more CD workers’
‘I see the Council as the principal facilitator of local services. I would not want to see the service outsourced’
‘CD is key to the Councils vision of a thriving community…it is prone to overshadowing by the physical, capital intensive aspects that give more headline grabbing attention…CDs greatest impact is in supporting the innumerable partnerships, networks, voluntary sector bodies…’
‘It is a role that naturally fits with LA as community leader. Need to consult and engage with community more’.
‘very satisfied with the support currently being received’
In other commentary there was much stress placed on the service’s value in keeping people informed, networking, acting as an ‘advocate’ for the voluntary sector contribution etc but a concern for more community engagement / consultation activity was expressed. These latter comments perhaps stand in contradiction to the apparently low priority given to date to ‘Neighbourhood Development’.
Comparison
Swale Borough Council
The Community Development Service is provided by one full time Community Development Officer (since 1998) - and since March 04, one full time assistant.
There is admin support provided but no dedicated CD support budget.
Project funding (external) has been attracted to enable two additional project staff (Community Hubs Project Manager and Queenborough Regeneration Community Development Officer) on 12 month contracts.
Tunbridge Wells Borough Council
Staffing
Community Development and Safety Manager Community Liaison Officer Community Youth Worker Community Worker (Sherwood) -part funded also by PCT and KCC Social Services Access Officer (DDA) a new addition to the team
‘Within this very small team we do community development, community safety and youth development and very much approach it as a mixed agenda. Notwithstanding that we have engaged in the business of support for the voluntary sector in delivering front line services, particularly in delivering youth work and advice services. We also fund Council for Voluntary Service as an infrastructure organisation for voluntary organisations.
Whilst there are no clear objectives for the work we do, it is apparent that we are be about supporting the voluntary sector and volunteering with the aim of building community capacity and delivering services. Linked to this is maximising participation and volunteering by young people’.
46
Canterbury City Council
The Community Development Service has been established for over four years.
Initially established with predominantly external funding (Children’s Fund, Home Office, NOF, SRB) the Council has mainstreamed most of these services and now funds them from its General Fund. The service is now part of Housing and Community Development.
CANTERBURY CC STAFFING
Community Development Team Family Tree
Velia Coffey Head of Housing & Community Development
Trevor Kennett Inspector Ray Carver Suzi Wakeham Assistant Head of Community Development Kent Police Assistant Head of Community Development
COMMUNITY BUSINESS PUBLIC TEAM SAFETY UNIT NEIGHBOURHOOD CHILDREN & SURE START DEVELOPMENT YOUTH CANTERBURY TEAM TEAM
Kate Dove Mark Richardson Community Business Manager Community Safety Manager Marie Royle Alison Small Alexa Kirsting-Woods Regeneration Manager Children & Youth Manager Programme Manager Abi Moulton Snr Community Development Officer Claire Gatward Stuart Revill PSU Support Officer Snr Anti Social Behaviour Investigator Amy Zawislak Ian Macdonald Mark Walton Regeneration Officer Children's & Youth CDO Finance & Monitoring Officer
Dominique Landau Julia Harrison Managerment Support Officer Team Leader Neighbourhood Centres Sarah Longley Stuart Batterbee Neighbourhood Warden Anti Social Behaviour Investigator Sue Nyirenda Ros Adby Sally Fox Regeneration Officer Children's & Youth CDO Admin Officer
Sally Harrison Vacancy Community Support Officer CDO- Neighbourhood Centres Caroline Brown Derek Kennett Neighbourhood Warden Anti Social Behaviour Investigator Janine Hodges Liz Mills Donna Youles Regeneration Officer P/T Children & Youth Worker Community Development Worker
Luke Poole Brian Carter Community Support Officer Centre Supervisor Natasha Griffiths Police Anti Social Neighbourhood Warden Behaviour Investigators Samantha Terry Nicky Gould Lorriane Shilling Healthy Living Centre Co-ordinator P/T Children & Youth Worker Project Coordinator
Amy Zawislak John Sparkes Neil Spencer Police Community Support CDO Voluntary Sector Grants Centre Supervisor Neighbourhood Warden Officers Amanda Sparkes Gemma Wood Katie Richardson CDO - Coastal P/T Children & Youth Worker Information Coordinator & Rural
Vacancy Crime Reduction Officers Neighbourhood Warden Anna George Karen Duprez P/T Children & Youth Worker Community Nurse
Tom Carroll Permanent Service Posts P/T Children & Youth Worker Externally Funded Fixed Term Posts Sue Mullin External Agencies / Joint Team Children's Fund Dev Worker
Casual Children & Youth Workers
Examples of key achievements
• Establishing joint police / Council 'Public Safety Unit' to tackle anti-social behaviour. Two teams both work from the same office in Herne Bay and managed as a single unit.
• Engaging young people in local democracy through consultation and participation: - over 60 young people signed up to young community panel 'Say What?'- consulted regularly on range of council issues - youth actions teams actively involved in shaping services - e.g skateboarding, play areas, environment
47 - annual youth conference organised by young people attracts attendance of over 80 Y/P
• Supporting local communities to have a direct influence in the future of their areas through 'community visioning' exercises and resulting action plans.
• Neighbourhood Development Team provide direct CD support for the voluntary sector - capacity-building / fundraising / business planning / forward strategies/consultation/social enterprise etc
• £400k annual grants budget, Community Alliance (LSP voluntary sector network) supported by the grants officer, Compact about to be signed
Annual budget of £1.8m - includes internal recharges, some external funding (Sure Start & Home Office), concessionary bus permits, and voluntary sector and parish grants budgets.
Performance Indicators
No national performance indicators have been set for Community Development services.
A steering group coordinated by the Community Development Foundation (CDF) and including the Audit Commission and the Home Office, have developed indicators for Community Involvement under the four themes of the December 2002 guidance: • Community influence • Community cohesion • Social capital • Condition of the community & voluntary sector The indicators are currently being tested by the Steering Group and will shortly be published.
The indicators (which also include specific provisions to support service development for young people) suggest that a rounded CD service should focus on partnership development, neighbourhood development, voluntary sector development and youth development.
This range of activity is best represented by the organisation and resourcing of the Canterbury service. Swale has more in common with Tunbridge Wells, having a smaller Grant Aid budget, and limited staff resources to cover the ground, most particularly in the area of Neighbourhood / Project Development.
Competition
Swale CVS acts as the voluntary sector infrastructure organisation and therefore has a key role in enabling voluntary sector representation and development. The CD service and staff directly work together with the CVS and support the development of the CVS particularly in this area.
The further development of the CVS, particularly in the area of co-ordinating and providing development support to local groups, is a strategic priority for the CD Service.
The CVS has capacity limitations and the CD service has made the case for additional SBC funding to be provided to the CVS for these voluntary sector development services.
Amicus / Swale Housing Assn provides some neighbourhood-based community development primarily focussed on the needs of its tenants in its priority wards. The CD service works closely with Amicus (including supporting bids for neighbourhood development staff or projects).
48
Best Value Assessment
The current method of delivery using in-house resources with external specialist support where necessary meets Best Value Objectives.
In addition we have engaged in the business of investing in the voluntary sector in delivering front line services, particularly in children’s and youth services and advice services. We also fund the Council for Voluntary Service as an infrastructure organisation for voluntary organisations.
Key Measures of Success/Performance Targets
No national performance indicators have been set for Community Development services.
Those under consideration (see earlier) indicate that a rounded CD service should focus on partnership development, neighbourhood development, voluntary sector development and youth development.
Local targets
Local Indicators from the Community Plan include Numbers of Clubs, societies and Voluntary Groups in the Borough (CPI 38) & Amount of Funding secured by Community Project Leaders from External Sources (Lottery) (CPI 41).
CD objectives and actions are given in the Unit Business Strategy and incorporated in the Community Plan.
It is proposed that targets and measures of success are set under the 4 ‘service focus’ headings. An attempt to do this has been provided in the Action Plan (see below).
Major Issues
Community Development services by extending partnerships, and developing community capacity, focus on processes which are fundamentally educational.
The objectives include developing and mediating the interface between ‘participatory’ and ‘representative’ democracy, thus promoting increased dialogue, understanding and co- operation between statutory and community agents.
The experience of the work over the last 12 months indicates that these services are increasingly valued by internal and external partners and raises questions about how the Council can build on this work given the limited resources available.
Key areas / objectives include
• Continued lead on Voluntary Sector Development
• Continued lead on Youth Strategy Development
• Continued lead on Children’s Service Development
• Continued support to development of partnership working to tackle disadvantage (particularly LSP/SF)
In terms of need for an upgraded response the following areas are particular concerns
• More work related to development and support for young people
49 • Greater focus on neighbourhood renewal
• Focus on rural disadvantage
• Possibly social enterprise development
• Re-organisation of SBC Grants services
Recommendations
There is a need to further develop the ‘community leadership’ role of the Council. The CD service is central to this project.
Partnership and brokerage activity is high and significant activity has been directed to linking these processes to the development of the Community Plan and the Local Strategic Partnership. The LSP has not been the subject itself of review, but the lack of resources for a dedicated co-ordinator function for the LSP continues to undermine the Council’s ability to further co-ordinate this activity for maximum impact.
The levels of deprivation in parts of Swale and the growth in housing development in the area suggests the need to get more support for local communities, particularly the most disadvantaged, and those in proximity to major redevelopments. This crosses over with the wider regeneration agenda linked to the Thames Gateway and Swale Forward and points to the need for a Neighbourhood Renewal / Regeneration Strategy for the Borough.
The needs of Urban and Rural Communities in Swale, particularly in respect of services for Young People are also an issue. These cross cut with the work of the CDRP and the Youth Service and other agencies and the CD service has taken an initiative to develop a Youth Strategy for the Borough that brings together the various initiatives for young people and seeks to address service gaps.
These issues of neighbourhood renewal / regeneration and youth strategy need to be more fully incorporated into the Community Plan.
Financial support to create a thriving range of voluntary sector organisations is limited, and therefore needs to be managed efficiently and be focussed on gaining maximum impact in terms of the key strategic objectives (as in the Community Plan).
The CD service administers various grant schemes and SLA’s but there is little iteration with other funding being determined through ‘Subsidiarity’ arrangements, CDRP funding and any other ad hoc granting arrangements including Swale Forward. This could lead to ‘double funding’ or poor targeting of resources.
The CD service is again central to the process and the service should be developed to co- ordinate and advise on all Grant funding requests prior to any funding recommendations.
The current CD agenda in Swale has evolved over the last 12 months and there may be a need to now move forward and consult stakeholders further on the review with a view to the production of a Community Development Strategy for Swale.
50 GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS
Purpose of the Review
The Council wishes to examine the service to identify what it is achieving for local people and how it supports the achievement of the aims of the Council.
Scope
The review attempts to identify grant funding provided to voluntary groups. As the overall review relates to Community Regeneration, other via the CR Unit are also identified.
Service Background
The Council has been providing Grant Aid Support in various forms to the local voluntary sector since 1974.
Two main schemes (and a QFT small grants scheme) have been operational through the Community Services Unit at the Council (04/05 Figures Shown unless otherwise indicated)
1. ‘Open Application’ – Advertised Schemes
a) The Voluntary Service Sector (Social Welfare) Grant Aid Awards (Annual Application)
Total £143,903 this year, but with £136,321 (95%) of this allocated to CAB SLA.
b) The Community Grants Scheme
Now substantially transferred (April 04) to parish councils under the PARISH GRANTS SCHEME (Subsidiarity).
Total of £396,000 available for allocation to local communities - comprising £305,000 of former Highways and £91,000 former ‘Community Grant’ funding.
Of this total, the Swale Borough Council retains £139,420 (35%) under its direct management for the- parished areas of Sittingbourne and Sheerness / Halfway (bi-annual application).
c) Although an independent charitable trust, Community Services (CD) administers grants from the Queenborough Fisheries Trust and Swale Recreation Trust (non-Council funding) providing a small grants service – approx £30,000pa.
However the Council funds voluntary sector groups through other additional means including
2. Discretionary Rate Relief
2003 / 04 Figures to be added
3. CDRP Funding (Home Office etc) In addition the Council enables Grant support to other voluntary groups via the CRIME & DISORDER REDUCTION PARTNERSHIP (£155,000 in 03/04).
4. Some SBC Depts have ‘agreements’ with voluntary sector orgs who are acting as ‘agents’ for Council Services, these include
• Fleur de Lys Centre providing the Tourist Information Service (£6,780)
51 • Housing Aid & Advice Centre providing the (statutory) housing advice service for the Housing Dept (£41,000) • Groundwork (£65,000) with Leisure Services.
5. Additional / Other non–advertised, internal pots and allocations
• Partnership Reserve / Development Fund - Home Start £10,000 - Balance £15,000 • External Funding Support Capital (£30,000 2003/04) - Swale Rail £1,000 - UK Online Centres £2,500 • Arts Dev Budget - Subscriptions £ 4,000 - Balance £11,000 • Community Safety Budget (non CDRP £12,500) - revenue support to Swale Mediation Service @ £5,000 (c/f from 2003/04) • Executive ‘Supplementary’ Allocations (2003/04) - ‘capital’ pump priming allocation to the Unreal Skate Park @ £21,000 - Revenue support to Education Business Partnership (2003/04) @ £ 5,100 - Capital Grant to Sheerness Sure Start @ £55,000.
The total currently committed / available (04/05) to the Voluntary Sector orgs through the two main schemes is as follows
COUNCIL FUNDED SCHEME GRANTS BUDGET Number of Number of Average groups groups Grant supported supported (revenue) (capital) a) VOLUNTARY SECTOR (SW) £143,903 11 EXC CAB (£136,321) £760 b) PARISH GRANTS (Subsidiarity) £396,000* 33* 7* £1,203 (rev) £1,558 (cap)
43*(03/04) £2,193* (03/04) Sub Total (Open Application) £539,903
* £396,000 available to Parish/Town councils to allocate to their communities either to voluntary organisations or direct schemes (i.e. street furniture/ building projects/minor highway works). At Feb 2005, £193,000 of the £347,000 expended or committed was allocated to community use. (Community Grant element in 2003/04 was £94,315.) At above date 40 community organisations had received support (capital & revenue schemes)
In summary then from the major / advertised Schemes the Council has provided revenue support to 11 voluntary sector groups - a major revenue grant to CAB of over £136,000 and small revenue support to 10 groups at an average £760. In 2004/05 to February 40 Parish Grant initiatives were supported to Community organisations (not all necessarily voluntary but not Parish Councils) to a total of £51k with a split of approximately £40k revenue and £11k capital.
52 While the latter scheme is being used by Parish councils for capital use to improve highway/footway infrastructure, the element granted to community organisations (55%) so far appears to be mainly for revenue use although this requires further analysis. The average capital grant is lower than the separate Community grants budget of 2003/04 as per above table. Although (see later) there has been a doubling of support in the current year through this scheme, the average grant remains small.
Challenge
Is the service needed?
Stronger community organisations means stronger communities and greater community participation and engagement. A wide range of groups / organisations have been supported with a range of support, from advice and assistance, help with funding and external funding, to direct project management. Grant Aid is a key part of the approach, and is evolving to be seen more proactively - as the Council ‘investing in social development’.
All the available indications are that there is a large demand for small grants.
However, the level of demand for substantive core / revenue funding appears low. In spite of widespread advertising this year (for the VS SW Grants 05/06 budget) only 6 new groups submitted applications. Most Groups applying for VS SW Grants for 05/06 made modest bids of little ‘added value’ in terms of their business operations (i.e. bids averaged £2,500).
Drawing simple conclusions about the real level of demand for ‘core funding’ is problematic. The BV Survey (available upon request) indicates that ongoing funding for core needs is a priority concern, so it is possible that the actual ‘demand’ may be artificially depressed by a variety of factors in Swale including
• The level of the VS SW Grants Budget – including the published Grants advice to applicants, that the Council only funded a small number of groups through this scheme in previous years and at an average grant of £760.
• considerable support to ‘service’ groups in the area through KCC Social Services Dept funding
• and SBC ‘Funding Advice’ & Community Development services, which continue to attract external finance to the local voluntary sector, (i.e. successful SRB, Childrens Fund, NOF, ESF, ODPM and other programmes). Whilst it will be necessary to continue and develop this ‘external funding’ work, it does not resolve all the issues - as this type of ‘funny money’ usually comes with strings, time expires and inevitably has ‘knock on’ implications in terms of exit & sustainability strategies.
Does it meet the right needs?
VS Social Welfare Grants Scheme,
Applications to this scheme are normally returned by October. There is little in the way of criteria clarifying what the Council is attempting to achieve from this ‘annual’ Scheme.
The recent decision to provide 95% of the available budget to CAB on a 3 year SLA (in line with previous recurring allocations) has stemmed the erosion of the overall budget due to meeting CAB requirements.
However the contribution to the CAB has effectively restricted other applicants - as it currently leaves an available balance of only approx £7,600 for the remaining voluntary sector groups.
53
This has been used in the main to support the revenue / running costs of service providing voluntary groups, but is in effect a small grants scheme. Excluding CAB, 10 groups (usually the same ones each year) are supported at an average grant of £760.
This has limited support to very few groups and provided no real facility to support additional groups, or new groups / ‘innovation’.
Apart from the CAB SLA, there is no system in place for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of this support (although any such activity would need to be proportionate, taking account of the relatively small sums provided).
The Community Grants now Parish Grants Scheme (Subsidiarity)
The scheme is discretionary, supporting capital or revenue costs allocated by parished /unparished areas to Community (inc voluntary organisations) and also for Parish purposes – such as footway/highway improvements.
Last year the budget was £94,315 and it supported 43 organisations again with small grants (i.e. the average grant was £2,200).
It is interesting to consider if the Subsidiarity arrangements for 04/05 might compensate for some of the limitations of the annual VS Social Welfare scheme. However, while £193,000 has been committed to ‘community purposes’ – (effectively doubling of the grants provided in 03/04). The increased number of applicants to 30+ parish/ town councils with relatively small grant budget allocations– has reduced the previous average grant (see table above).
The new arrangements may further ‘lock out’ such voluntary sector groups, as application now is via individual Parishes who may be less inclined to support ‘non parochial’ or ‘Borough wide’ groups / projects or to support in small amounts necessitating multiple applications, a user survey is required to evaluate this effect, ideally post the first year of operation.
The Scheme may not be sympathetic to requests for recurring revenue support for projects and services (approaches to Sheerness unparished committee for core revenue support have been granted, but with the warning that it should not be presumed that such support would necessarily continue in future years).
On the positive side, the Council recently advertised the Scheme by promoting the availability of ‘nearly £400,000’ to clubs and societies.
Actual Availability of Grants to Voluntary Sector Applicants 04/05 (capital to revenue)
SCHEME GRANTS BUDGET GRANTS BUDGET (CAPITAL) (REVENUE / Recurring) VOLUNTARY SECTOR (SW) £0 £143,903 Less allocation to CAB SLA -£136,321 Available for Application £0 £7,582 (annual) PARISH GRANTS £396,000 £396,000 (Community - potential) Available to Local Application £11,000 (at Feb 05) £193,000 £40,000
54
Other Ad Hoc Arrangements / Internal pots
The implication of the grants system as described, is that significant Borough Wide or ‘area’ specific projects, strategic innovation / new service developments, tend to have to bypass the ‘open’ / normal grants arrangements in order to access Council support.
Recent examples include Home Start, and more recently Swale Mediation Service and the Unreal Skate Park (see below) both of which originated through their perceived benefit to community safety.
Other/Additional funding Revenue Other Partnership Reserve Home Start £10,000 Balance £15,000 Arts Development Budget £15,000 Unreal Skatepark £21,000 Community Safety Budget £12,500 Sub Total £73,500
Whilst this may demonstrate that the Council is keen to invest in ‘key’ developments in the voluntary sector, with the exception of the Community safety related schemes, such ad hoc arrangements are open to challenge as ‘non-transparent’, and not securing Best Value as there appears to be no clear approach to evaluation and monitoring of these investments.
There is therefore no link to the Councils Grants Administration services. It is worth noting that if this funding were to be added to the annual VS Social Welfare Scheme next year this would provide for a sum more openly available / advertised to applicants of over £81,000 (a ten fold increase on this years budget), making the scheme more viable.
Bearing in mind that the Council is also affecting the development of the voluntary sector contribution with other linked funding (such as the CDRP budget, and other possible LSP & SF initiatives), a more coherent, joined-up and strategic approach is indicated.
Are there other ways of providing it?
2. The following options have been considered:
To do nothing – Stronger community organisations means stronger and more sustainable communities and greater community participation and engagement. A wide range of groups / organisations have been supported by CD services with a range of support from advice and assistance, help with funding and external funding, to direct project management. Grant Aid is a key part of the approach, and is evolving to be seen as more integral to creating sustainable / thriving communities. If the Grants service did not exist it would be more difficult to build the ‘thriving communities’ the Council wants to see in Swale.
To provide the service externally through consultants / other partners – The Council has placed the Community Grants service with Parish Councils under Subsidiarity arrangements.
SBC officers are still however required to ‘manage’ the new arrangements, including retaining a more hands-on role in the unparished areas. Savings / efficiencies accrued through this process are currently unquantified. Although there might be expected to be some decrease in SBC administrative time as a result, this may be offset by possible increases in the additional scrutiny time required.
55 The Council would need to ensure that it sets the ‘strategic’ parameters for any outsourced service delivery, and retains the ability to monitor and direct performance. This has to some extent been understood in the Subsidiarity arrangements between Parishes and the Council, (One in ten applications are scrutinised by SBC in revised arrangements which also rely on the codes of practice of the Parish/Town councils). Although there has been some further liberalising of the purposes of the scheme for 05/06, perhaps more consideration might need to given to reviewing the purposes of the scheme in light of experience and the ‘demand side’ needs identified in this review.
In respect of the VS Social Welfare Scheme the small budget currently provided is unlikely to make a viable business proposal, (although a small fee could be provided to suitable agencies to support the administration, monitoring and evaluation of the CAB Service Level Agreement). Again the Council would need to ensure that it sets the ‘strategic’ parameters for any outsourced service delivery, and retains the ability to monitor and direct performance
Consultation
The problem of the limitations / relevance of the annual (VS SW) Grants budget has been raised in previous Council Reports, including a specific review report to Community Scrutiny Committee in March 2003. The Committee had requested that a questionnaire be provided for voluntary sector groups to complete.
The resulting report does not state how many questionnaires were distributed nor does it say how many were returned. Files show 10 completed forms returned. These came from the 10 groups in receipt of funding, (which is not particularly surprising as it was made a condition of their next grant application to return the form). It does not appear therefore that there was any effort to survey the wider voluntary sector in Swale through this exercise.
The level of enquiry was also partial. Information requested was about the services provided by these groups. There were no questions seeking the customers’ perspective of the Council Grant Scheme/s.
It would be possible to conclude from reading the report that the basic issue was a lack of clarity in Members as to why the Council was funding the particular voluntary groups. It appears as if no further investigations of these matters were undertaken following this meeting.
Consultation on the Parish Grants Scheme has recently been completed with Parish and Town councils in the Swale area. There was a high response rate to the survey, with 55% of first-tier councils participating.
The survey revealed there was general satisfaction that administration of the scheme was not overly bureaucratic and that financial procedures were workable, however some specific issues were raised. One was a need to liberalise the scope of the scheme, and this has been agreed from 2005/6.
It was concluded from the survey results that the Parish Grant Scheme broadly met the overall objective set for it, i.e., to, for the first time, provide parish and town councils with a mechanism for partnering the district authority by directing additional SBC funding allocated to their areas.
There was apparently no survey seeking the applicants’ / voluntary sector perspective of the Parish Council Grant Scheme.
56
Grants Best Value Survey & Workshop
As part of this review, a Grants Service Survey Form (Appendix B) was sent out and a Grants Best Value Workshop was held with customers and partners. 9 Orgs returned the survey form and 22 people representing 18 organisations attended the workshop.
The survey form return although small in number, identified similar concerns to the workshop. However it also emphasised that groups needed more info on the SBC Grants Schemes (over 60% of the respondents were not aware of the SBC Grant Schemes inc CDRP). It also indicated that their main contact point for advice on Grants at the Council would be Community Development.
The full results of the Workshop are given in Appendix A. On the whole the group felt the Council did not recognise the extent of the voluntary sector contribution to the local economy and criticised the Councils grant giving systems for being ‘closed’ and non-transparent.
In terms of focus, the need for ‘small grants’ was highlighted, including providing a ‘leverage’ fund that groups could draw down on as part of a process of attracting external funding to Swale. Overall the orgs represented generally felt that Council grants should be more clearly ‘needs-led’ and ‘strategic’, i.e. funding organisations / groups who target disadvantage and meet clearly identified service gaps, and those that have a ‘wide impact’ (i.e. CAB, CVS, & SWALE COMMUNITY CENTRES / Phoenix House).
These views are generally supportive of the approach advocated by officers (using limited funds more strategically / investing in particular ‘priority’ needs / services) and could be seen to re-enforce initial ‘demand side’ conclusions which suggest that currently the highest level of demand in Swale is for accessible small grants.
Comparison
Comparisons have been sought from Gravesham & Dover Councils. These show differing levels of grant support but similar approaches (i.e. largest grants to CAB).
• Gravesham 95,000 pop – Consolidated Budget - £377,000 - but half to Gravesham Community Leisure. The Council publishes clear grants guidelines and procedures. Exc Gravesham Community Leisure, 47% of grants budget goes to CAB (£80,000), for the rest the average grant is £3,250.
• Dover 104,000 pop - £61,500 – 88% to CAB
Competition
A wide range of authorities and organisations locally regionally and nationally provide grants to local groups. There is an increasing recognition of the strategic role of the voluntary sector and an increasing concern particularly amongst local funders to ensure that funding is delivered in a complementary and sustainable manner. Most recently the CD service has taken steps to enable such discussions, and relevant iteration between funding from KCC, PCT, SF & ESF schemes for Swale Groups.
57
Best Value Assessment
In general best value reviews of Grants Services identify good practice as
• Knowing what the Council wants to achieve from the Grants funding
• Linking Grants in a clear way to Council / Strategic Objectives
• Robust assessment criteria that meets the Councils priorities
• Effective monitoring and evaluation of what is being achieved for the Grant (value for money)
• Developing ‘agreements’ that provide more certainty for groups with larger grants / significant service delivery
• Avoiding ‘log-jamming’ grants schemes / enabling new groups to gain funding and encouraging innovation
• Providing for ‘open government’ in the administration of grants schemes, - including fair competition / equality of access to grants, accessible support and advice, transparency re sums available, processes and decisions, and accountability to service customers and residents
• Using the grants service ‘developmentally’, to influence service quality, performance and development of local groups
• Ensure that Council funding is used to generate additional funding where possible
• Developing the service strategically, to counter duplication and work in partnership to provide what people want
COMPACT & Best Value
The Council and other partners have been working together to develop a local COMPACT (published March 04), to include a Code of Practice on Funding, which will be informed by this review.
However it is useful to make comparison with the key issues in the National Compact Code on Funding & Best Value reviews as follows.
58 COMPACT best Best Value Indicator Social Welfare Parish Other practice Scheme Scheme AD HOC • Clarity in • Clearly stating the Partial Partial No funding funds available conditions • Having a clear, fair No Yes No and transparent applications policy • Having clear No Yes No assessment criteria All which meet the applications Councils Priorities should relate to Community Plan aims • Fair access to • Enabling new No Yes No strategic, groups to gain But only project & access to funding small grants contract available funding • Value for • Ensuring grants No Yes No money provide value for • Improved co- money operation between depts • Joint approach to monitoring & evaluation • Ensure Council’s No Partial – No funding generates match additional funding funding requirement but not necessarily ext funding • Accountability • Publish who Yes Yes Unclear for public receives the grant funds and for what projects • Tell people what Partial Partial Partial grants are achieving in making the area a better place to live & work • Respect for Yes Yes VS independence • Multi – year Yes Yes funding discretionary • Assistance in- Yes No kind • Supporting Partial Yes Partial core-costs but only small grants • Support for VS • Work in partnership Partial Partial No infrastructure with other Initiative for (ie CVS) authorities / funders networking to provide what devolved to local people want. 1st tier councils 59 Recommendations/Improvement Plan
In line with the above the following areas in particular need attention.
1. Knowing what the Council wants to achieve from its Grants funding
As indicated, the Council does not clarify to itself or customers what it wants to achieve from its grant funding.
• There is a need to clarify the Councils approach to the voluntary sector and the strategic objectives that providing grant funding enables. The approach should be less about being a ‘donor of funds’, and more strategically about ‘investing in social development’.
2. Linking Grants in a clear way to Council / Strategic Objectives
• There is a need to continually review the grant conditions to ensure overt linkage with corporate objectives. In particular the emphasis should be on supporting relevant objectives in the Community Plan.
3. Robust assessment criteria that meets the Councils priorities
Processes for assessing grant applications vary across the different arrangements.
• There is a need to develop better grants applications assessment systems.
4. Effective monitoring and evaluation of what is being achieved for the Grant - Value for Money.
The Council has limited arrangements for measuring and collating what it is achieving for local people by its payment of grants. Partly as a result of this Councillors have struggled to get to grips with the Grants Schemes, and stakeholder perception of the (voluntary grants) service is also poor – Parish Grant applicants not yet surveyed).
• The council needs to develop its systems to measure and evaluate the grants to ensure value for money and explain to local people who they have been awarded to and what they are achieving.
5. Developing ‘agreements’ that provide more certainty for groups with larger grants / significant service delivery
• Service Level Agreements have been developed via the CD Service. The CD SLA Framework needs to be used corporately as the basis for all future SLA’s with not for profit organisations.
6.. Avoiding ‘log-jamming’ grants schemes, enabling new groups to gain funding and encouraging innovation.
• Although there is an apparent increase in demand for the new Parish Scheme the Council should explore the allocations made, survey applicants and consider ways in which it can increase the effectiveness of the existing scheme.
The annual VS SW Scheme should be reviewed to see how the existing limited budget can be better targeted – much of the money is given as very small grants demonstrating little ‘cost benefit’. The Council has not responded to recommendations in the past to increase this budget, and (as the ‘demand side’ analysis suggests) there is pressure to use limited Council funds more strategically to
60 support organisations with ‘wide impact’, including in particular the CVS and Swale Community Centres.
• The SW Annual Grants Scheme budget should be used strategically, with the priority being to support the Swale CVS as the ‘umbrella’ / development agency for the voluntary sector in Swale.
Groups with major / new service proposals cannot be supported by the publicised Council Grant Aid schemes - because of budget limits or other constraints in these schemes. Paradoxically, the Council has been anxious in the past to find funds to support such innovation and this has resulted in ad hoc funds being provided.
• Where significant bids are received or encouraged by the Council / other Service Units, SBC Grants Administration should be consulted to ensure strategic fit, and to consider ‘value for money’ processes including the application of SLA’s and/or the integration of any proposed commitment into the Councils SW Annual Grants scheme.
7. Providing for ‘open government’ in the administration of grants schemes, including fair competition / equality of access to grants, accessible support and advice, transparency re sums available, processes and decisions, and accountability to service customers and residents.
Although the Councils grants budgets remains constrained, the Council is randomly providing extra supplementary budgets to support innovation. Other linked funders such as the CDRP & SF are also responding to individual approaches. This can result in funds being provided through iniquitous/non-transparent & non-strategic arrangements (promoting a ‘not what you know, but who you know’ culture).
• The Council and all agencies within the ambit of the Council or otherwise signed-up to the Swale COMPACT, should comply with COMPACT principles regarding fair access to funds. In particular Advice / Publicity and systems for all the grants schemes (including ad hoc Council arrangements, CDRP funds, Swale Forward funds etc) needs to be further developed and better co- ordinated.
• Internal co-ordination of existing funding needs to be improved. At least 4 different staff members are involved in the administration of the Council grants (2 in the case of the Parish Scheme) which is a complication and this may point to the need for some streamlining of effort.
• Notwithstanding, there needs to be specific arrangements to collate and evaluate information from the administrators of all the Council schemes (SWAnnual Scheme, Parish/Subsidiarity Scheme, QFT & CDRP, Com Services etc) on a regular and timely basis - to ensure non-duplication in use of funds, and agree any funding strategies. Advice and support from the External Funding Officer needs to be included.
• Co-ordination should be through the Community Development Service which should be identified as the locus / point of contact for information about all Council grants.
8. Using the grants service ‘developmentally’, to influence service quality, performance and development of local groups.
• This can be achieved through the development of improved grants criteria & conditions, and the development of SLA’s and funding specifically for such
61 purposes, including funding voluntary sector development / ‘infrastructure’ services such as CVS.
9. Ensure that Council funding is used to generate additional funding where possible.
• This can be achieved through the development of improved grants criteria & conditions. There is also a need to create more robust links between the VS related work of the External Funding Officer and Grant Aid Administration.
10. Developing the service strategically, to counter duplication and work in partnership to provide what people want
A wide range of authorities and organisations locally regionally and nationally provide grants to local groups. There is an increasing recognition of the strategic role of the voluntary sector and an increasing concern particularly amongst local funders to ensure that funding is delivered in a complementary and sustainable manner. Most recently the CD service has taken steps to enable such discussions, and relevant iteration between funding from KCC, PCT, SF & ESF schemes for Swale Groups.
• There is a need to develop the Swale COMPACT as a ‘Swale Voluntary Sector Development Strategy’ in conjunction with all key funding partners / stakeholders (in particular via the LSP) and in line with national policy and good practice guidelines. This cross cuts with the Community Development Service Best Value Review and is an intergral part of developing the CD Strategy for Swale.
ACTION PLAN
The review cross cuts with the Community Development Service Best Value Review and is an intergral part of developing the CD Strategy for Swale. The commitments to provide and develop the Grants Administration Service and to further co-ordination are contained in the CD Review Action Plan, as is COMPACT Development. The additional recommendations in this review will be picked up through these processes.
62 ANNEX A Summary Best Value Grants Service Workshop 04
SWOT SUMMARY
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES • Grants paid up front • Limited information • Service Level Agreements • Closed / reactive processes • Good SBC officer support – • Assessment not transparent accessible / specialist • Ext funding officer - support to smaller projects • SBC officers ‘signposting’ • Over-bureaucratic systems for small grants • External Funding Officer • Unclear criteria • Joint Conferences • Last minute decisions • COMPACT • Short-termism • Community Plan • Lack of recognition of economic contribution of • LSP & Partnership Development vol sector / leverage • Diversity / Networking • Changing priorities ‘moving goalposts’ • Inconsistent SBC • Same groups / ‘log jamming’ • Media - ‘flavour of the month issues’ • Lack of Staff in Community Services SBC
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS • (Needs based / inclusive) Community • Lack of capacity / pressure on staff in voluntary Plan sector • Business Planning • ‘Business’ approaches (i.e. charging?) • Setting standards for grants / level • Political push / ‘flavour of the month’ playing field • Smaller groups squeezed • Communications / Co-ordination • Duplication • COMPACT / Joint Working / Sharing • LA grants system ‘Discretionary’ resources / premises / training • ‘Funding Advice’ Newsletter & CVS Vol Sector news • Thames Gateway • Small Grants initiative
Why support the voluntary sector?
• Close to communities and community needs / disadvantage • Responsive – to neglect / gaps in provision • Flexible & Diverse • Preventative – saves future costs • Cost effective • Promotes Volunteering • Specialist expertise • Contributes (as social economy) to employment, growth / development • Government Target /s • Levers investment / new money into the area
Which Groups should be supported? • Groups with widest / strategic impact (CVS / CAB) • Those responding to identified needs / gaps • Those targetting the most disadvantaged • Those who activities are ‘preventative’
63
Attendees
Tony Parry Kent Assn of Parish Councils Laura Jobson Home Start Gerry Morawire Faversham Umbrella Robyn Gregory Faversham Umbrella Chris Bryant Swale Minorities Policing Panel Jastinder Matthews Swale Minorities Policing Panel Kevin O’Reilly Sheppey Matters Cliff Holroyd SBC / Police Irene Hall CAB in Swale Chris Walker Hope Street Centre, Sheerness Tina Miles Amicus Ross Gill Swale Forward Lynn Jones Murston Poppyfields Andrea Ingham FACE Peter Speakman SBC Sarah Williams SV & CDC Jan Easter Faversham Community Café Angela Kewell Swale Social Services – Adults Caroline Friday Contracting Officer East Kent SSD Chris Lovelock Swale Carers Centre Kirsty Gaunt Swale Borough Council Jim Wilding FWA
Steve Vartoukian SBC CD (Facilitator) Pam Hall SBC Best Value Team
64 ANNEX B
USER SURVEY Sept 04 (see Form Attached)
Number of Respondents 9
WHAT SWALE COUNCIL FUNDING ARE YOU AWARE OF / and or HAVE YOU APPLIED TO (see below)?
AWARE AWARE OF (YES) ACTIVE SCHEMES Admin OF? (no) ANNUAL ‘Social Steve Delaney / ***** 5 **** 4 Welfare Grants Steve Scheme Vartoukian since Sept 03 Bi -Annual JAN WEST ****** 6 *** 3 Community Grants Scheme – Up To March 2004 (see next scheme) Parish Councils Parish Councils ****** 6 *** 3 Scheme – from April - Jan West for 2004 unparished Areas Swale Crime & Cliff Holroyd ****** 6 *** 3 Disorder Reduction Partnership Funding Queenborough Steve Delaney / ** 2 ******* 7 Fisheries Trust Steve Vartoukian & Kirsty Gaunt since Sept 03 Swale Recreation Steve Delaney / ********* 9 Trust Steve Vartoukian & Kirsty Gaunt since Sept 03
Commentary
Although a small response to the survey the following results are noted.
QFT is most well known Grants Scheme at 78%.
Over 60% of the respondents were not aware of the SBC Grant Schemes (inc CDRP)
• Need for more Info to groups on Grants Schemes.
65
WHO DO YOU CONTACT FOR GRANTS INFO
Steve Vartoukian 7 Peter Speakman 1 Cliff Holroyd 1 Kirsty Gaunt 1 Mike Browning 1 Rel Dept Via Reception 1
66% of responses would contact Community Services / CD Staff for Info with 58 % identifying the CD Officer
• Co-ordination of Grants should be via CD Service
77% had received some support from the External Funding Officer
What extra support does your organisation need to enable it to secure funding? (indicate priority by placing numbers in box ie 1 is top priority)
WRITTEN INFORMATION on FUNDING / GRANTS etc 3 6 2 2 2 5 1 2
FUNDING FAYRES 6 4 4 6 6 3
FUNDING WORKSHOPS / TRAINING 4 1 3 3 3 1 6
HANDS ON / ONE TO ONE ADVICE 2 5 1 1 2 1
LINKS TO NETWORKS & PARTNERSHIPS 1 2 1 6 4 1 4 5
I.T. BASED ADVICE & INFO 5 3 5 5 3 4
COMMENT
Top Priorities were Hands On One-to –One Advice and Links to Networks & Partnerships. This may indicate that Partnerships are attractive where they are seen to link to funding.
IT based Info & Funding Fayres scored lowest
WHAT AGENCIES WOULD YOU CONTACT FOR THIS SUPPORT?
KCC 3
SWALE BOROUGH COUNCIL 7
SWALE FORWARD 1
Swale Volunteering & Community Development Centre (CVS) 7
Amicus / Swale Housing Assn 3
Kent Rural Community Council 1
Our National Office (if Branch of National Org) 2
66 Comment
Orgs are getting support with funding advice etc from a variety of sources. SBC & CVS being the primary sources.
What Strategic Partnership Working or Networks are you linked to in Swale?
Partnership AWARE OF? INTERESTED IN MORE INFO Swale Local Strategic ******** *** Partnership (& Theme Groups) Crime & Disorder Reduction ****** *** Partnership Swale Forward ***** *** Swale Voluntary Sector Forum ********* * Childrens Consortia **** * Childrens Fund ****** *
Comment
100% awareness of the Voluntary Sector Forum (CVS) with 8 out of 9 aware of the LSP. At the time of the survey 5 out of 9 aware of Swale Forward.
What funding need do you have (indicate current priority by placing numbers in box i.e. 1 is top priority)
ONGOING CORE REVENUE SUPPORT 11113141
CAPITAL FUNDING 4221324
ONGOING PROJECT REVENUE SUPPORT 1242232
ONE-OFF PROJECT FUNDING 31342413
Comment
Most prioritised Ongoing Core Revenue, but Ongoing Project Revenue was second highest priority.
IMPROVING THE VOL SECTOR SUPPORT & THE GRANTS SYSTEM
• Provide advice and support, signposting as well • Be open & transparent • More publicity – increase the funds • Provide more accommodation for vol groups • Funding for VS Infrastructure • Develop COMPACT • More Information • Advice on sustainable funding • Help develop funding partnerships • Consult more on your grants services
*************************************
67 EXTERNAL FUNDING
Service Background
3. Members will recall that the External Funding role was created in early 1999, following revelations that Swale’s performance in attracting national lottery and other external funding was poor. The figures, as presented at that time showed a much worse picture than currently with Swale having achieved just £1,252,318 since 1995 and lying thirteenth in Kent with the lowest attracted funding by district. In fact the latest figures from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport’s (DCMS) website now show that Swale eventually attracted £1,794.774 borough wide between 1995 and 1999 with the additional funding appearing in the latter quarter of 1999, but still remaining the lowest return in Kent details (available upon request). The statistics also show that since the introduction of the External Funding role the Boroughs success has increased to some £11,046,824 and our position overall in Kent has risen to eighth, again based on total receipts since the introduction of the lottery in 1995, with our annual position much improved.
Note: Adjustments to actual funding occur almost continuously and as can be seen affects the statistical evidence quite dramatically making long term comparisons difficult at best. It should also be noted that the lottery positions taken from the (DCMS) website excludes funding that is countywide and concentrates only on funding that can be directly attributed to the Borough.
4. In 1999 we were also almost at the bottom of the national league table as provided by Lottery Monitor (Table available upon request) and here a similar upward turn has taken place nationally rising from 404th to 378th, although this shows a slight dip on last year which may be accounted for by the latest changes in evaluation of the information.
5. The majority of the early funding for Swale was allocated to Faversham area but since 1999 and the introduction of the service funding has been much more evenly spread. Swale’s success however, has been mixed across the distributors with the New Opportunities Fund the most supportive financially, however, it is noteworthy that there has been regular support from most other distributors (data available upon request). The Arts Council is one area where to date Swale has achieved the least success. In this case interest is now coming forward from the community and an improved situation for the future looks hopeful. Recent approaches also by the Heritage Lottery Fund has provided encouragement and perhaps opportunities for resolving some of the long outstanding issues in the Borough e.g. a celebration of the Islands avionic historic past.
6. Much of this change in Swales success it is suggested, whilst not detracting from the very hard work put in by the applicant organisations – always the main contributor, can be attributed to the following factors:
• the improved awareness of the community, as a result of funding advice systems set up and maintained by the External Funding Officer (EFO),of funding opportunities; • the advice and guidance on applications and related matters to applicants; • improved partnership working, and • an improved awareness by the Lottery Bodies of the Borough and the issues surrounding it.
7. The External Funding Service of course is not all about Lottery funding, there are many other sources: Charitable Trusts and Foundations; Central Government; European Funding; Businesses etc, and the Authorities success in attracting Thames Gateway and Invest to Save funding are examples of this. Much of the officers advice to community groups and Swale officers over the past five and a half years, about 50%, has been to consider approaching these other sources and whilst there is a readily available statistical information on lottery funding as one measurement of success, results from other sources are not easily identifiable, or at least not cost effectively so as the only known source is each individual Trust or organisations end of year accounts..
68 8. Information on project success could come from the users of the External Funding Service of course. However, their involvement with the service usually is to seek advice on who to approach, and once received they are responsible in the main (other than for clearly strategically important applications) for the application and perhaps quite rightly they do not therefore, if successful, revisit or inform the officer of their success. For once the euphoria of the success is over the hard work begins in implementing the project.
9. This can best be demonstrated by quoting two simple examples of groups who received funding from the Bernard Sunley Foundation following advice from the EFO, they are:
• Milstead Village Hall • Norton Village Hall
Whilst the officer worked closely with both of the above examples, neither informed him of their success with the Trust, they did however advise the officer on their main success, that of the Community Fund.
10. These examples are provided to show that a true financial impact of the service is not economically sensible to pursue. The above paragraphs show that a full identification of the officer’s and external funding roles impact upon Swales success is difficult to assess and explains the reason for Lottery funding being used to date as the only “financial” performance indicator / benchmark as identified later in this report.
11. The Lottery statistics now gathered (available upon request), further identify that for every district, success cannot necessarily be measured by the level of income received in any one year. All districts have years where funding is low and this can be attributed to a number of factors including:
• high profile projects for the district being in the development stages and applications not submitted; • high profile projects not addressing or appropriate to lottery funding; • the application date or the time taken by the lottery body to make a decision taking the result beyond the end of the financial year; and • a lack of high profile, high cost projects coming forward.
It is for these reasons that other more reliable and appropriate indicators are therefore now being researched and to this effect some suggestions and recommendations for future indicators are made later in this report.
12. When introduced then in 1999 Members agreed priorities for the service as set out in the strategic plan 1999 / 2004 which were as follows, and in the main they have been met i.e.
• Database of funding bodies and their criteria to be established – this was sourced early on and Grantfinder is in regular successful use along with The Directory of Social Change (DoSC). These databases are under constant review as to their appropriateness and evaluated against competitors. Recently the addition of Grantnet has been approved to provide direct community access to the information and an opportunity to buy into an online version of the DoSC data is being pursued; • Information database regarding organisations and end users to be compiled – initiated by the EFO and passed to SV & CDC upon request to complete; • Development of an Internet Service – completed early on and recognised nationally as innovative (LGC+ E-gov.uk May 2001). Although time constraints on the service have made updates to the website intermittent it has proved useful and recent comments made to the EFO by one of Grantfinders competitors J4B placed it amongst the best in the country. A new format has now been developed by the EFO using a private family
69 source and working with Swales IT Services which it is hoped will go live later this year along with Grantnet. • Development of a regular newsletter – Funding Advice a bi-monthly magazine is successful and widely distributed throughout Swale to over 300 external organisations and individuals. In addition to focussed news on funding opportunities that are relevant to Swale the magazine provides links to lottery bodies, regional and local organisations and individual officers who may assist applicants and offers a direct fund search and advice facility. Through contacts made with the EFO the newsletter is also known to be read widely beyond Swales own borders; Development of advisory information on how to apply for National Lottery funding – leaflet developed and available since 1999, however, with the improved communication systems in place its use now is limited; • Partnerships and partnership working to be developed - developments with County colleagues, other organisations, and lottery bodies are established and on-going. Partnership applications have proven to be very successful e.g. Healthy Living Centres. The recent close working with Lottery Body Development Officers is also proving very useful. • The provision of advice to community groups, organisations, individuals and to Swale BC Services – all advisory services are operational, proving successful and are on-going; • Development of monitoring procedures to measure success – developed in 1999 and is in place however new measures as commented on above are under review.
13. Once established the service was quickly overrun with requests, as was anticipated, and without additional resources has had to take a strategic approach to demand prioritising the work in accordance with the Councils own strategic aims and objectives. Initially this was the Cultural Strategy, Vision and Mission etc, but latterly has been redirected towards the Community Plan and the Medium Term Financial Strategy. This has meant some applicants waiting for a response and or being disappointed.
14. A review of the Strategic Plan and updating would have taken place this year, however, the outcome of the Best Value Review is now awaited in order to ensure that any recommendations are included in the new plan. Consideration will also be given to the recommendations of the CPA.
15. In addition to the strategic approach approved by Members in 1999 the EFO has through need and demand provided advice to organisations on: Charitable Status; forming Companies; VAT; and business planning. Writing some business plans directly for local organisations with their input e.g. Healthy Living Centres; Kemsley Community Trust; and Unreal Skatepark. The EFO has now scheduled to develop advisory notes on all of the above to be included and made available via the website later this year. A hard format may also be developed.
16. Through close working with the lottery bodies the EFO established a need to develop a Cultural Strategy to support applications from the Borough. The EFO was heavily involved in its development which was recently approved by Members and is now operational. The EFO continues to provide advice on the success measures of the strategy.
17. Through the development of the Cultural Strategy it became apparent that the EFO could increase output by working from home in an environment that was conducive to research and compiling business plans etc. The service lending itself effectively to an electronic base and the EFO being a competent user advice to the community has as a result been improved. Time has now shown this methodology to be effective and, approximately 50% more enquiries per year are now being dealt with than when the EFO worked from Swale House. The EFO now resides in North Wales returning to Swale for strategic meetings, to meet with community groups etc, providing advice and face to face assistance in a clinic style approach.
70
Challenge
Is the service needed?
18. The need for the service is demonstrable through both the consistent high level of demand for advice and guidance from the community and from statistical evidence (Indices of Multiple Deprivation 2004) which shows that much is yet to be achieved. Local demand is largely driven by a lack of project funding, facilities and services as well as a shortfall in community experience, and knowledge in fund seeking etc.
19. Demand for the service comes from individuals, organisations, community groups, as well as officers of Swale BC.
Does it address the right needs?
20. As stated above the service takes its direction from the Councils own strategic documents updated as policy changes and the service is provided, subject to time constraints, to all requests. However, it should be emphasised again here that strategically important applications are given priority and a higher level of involvement: The Healthy Living Centres and the Unreal project are examples where the EFO actively assisted in the development including writing business plans and applications.
21. Current strategic activity is based around the Thames Gateway funding and Community Hubs. Whilst assisting in this the EFO is also looking Borough wide working with organisations and partners to address a similar need in Faversham, not part of the Gateway, to balance the books as it were. Current activity in this respect involves seeking suitable accommodation for voluntary organisations.
Are there other ways of providing it?
22. The following options have been considered:
• To do nothing – this would it is argued result in, community groups having less support, a reduction in awareness, fewer applications and a considerable reduction in external funding attracted to the Borough. Whilst some applications will continue to be forwarded their success will be less certain, possibly returning to pre: 1999 levels (data available upon request)
• To provide the service externally through consultants – this is an option, as external advice sources do exist (i.e. Capita) the cost of advice has been compared on a number of occasions and rejected as it would prove extremely high and less informative. However, the cost could be kept down if only a percentage of applications were forwarded for advice. The local understanding would not apply in this case and the hard to reach cases are less if never likely to come forward. One other issue here would be the local community’s awareness of the availability of the advice; currently the EFO service is well advertised and communicated.
• To provide only an online accessible Grant database – J4B is a database that takes its source information from the Directory of Social Change and can be provided to the community as an online resource, attached to Swales website as Grantnet will be shortly, - “Open 4 Community”. There are also two other portals “Open 4 Business” and “Open 4 Social Enterprise” that can be provided. To be comparable with Grantfinder it is considered that all three portals would be required and the cost would be in the order of £8,250 per annum plus a £1,500 set up fee. (Grantfinder costs which have just been approved for the next three years, are £1,600 plus £750 for Grantnet per annum), all are subject to VAT
71
This method of providing information of course would not provide the same level of support as per the current service, Funding Advice for instance would not be available and the community would need to be self reliant on accessing and interacting with the database. Hard to reach groups and those less competent in the use of IT would certainly not use the service, and as for consultants, most would not know of its existence without extensive advertising. Again, the EFO’s broad view, knowledge of Swale and expertise would also not be available to the community and it is considered that these plus other factors would result in, a reduction in awareness, fewer applications and a considerable reduction in external funding attracted to the Borough, at least back to 1999 levels.
What is the County perspective?
23. The following comment has been provided by Colin Maclean Head of External Funding at Kent County Council:
KCC has a strong interest in external funding and its importance is seen to be growing. It has a Corporate External Funding Unit which has developed its range of services significantly, following a cross-cutting Best Value Review, into a model of best practice. The overriding aim is to optimise external funding and increase Kent's share through partnership. This necessarily requires a leadership role to continuously improve the capability of the Kent External Funding Officers Group, on which Swale has been strongly represented. Specific examples of joint working include a major Funding Fair, research on funding-finding packages and providing Swale with external funding information/intelligence. The KCC service offers a menu of products which can be customised to the needs of a specific borough, such as Swale.
The EFO has taken a proactive role in working with the County Council and other District colleagues resulting in shared intelligence and on occasions a county wide project approach to funding regimes.
24. The advice provided by the EFO as stated is based on a broad knowledge and level of experience and on data received through various sources such as Grantfinder; Directory of Social Change; Lottery Monitor, Lottery Bodies etc. These sources are consistently reviewed challenging their effectiveness in the community and to date no other sources have been found comparable to those employed. The level of external funding attracted since the introduction of the service and level of satisfaction as identified by the customer survey (available upon request) leads to the conclusion that the current delivery mechanism is the most appropriate for the Swale Community.
Consultation
25. A recent survey was carried out amongst a selection of customers who receive Funding Advice, May 2004, from the External Funding Service. The survey was carried out to establish a baseline for comparison with the EFO moving home to North Wales operating the service using the various forms of communication available to him and returning to Swale for specific clinic style meetings and strategic events. The report and a summary of responses are available upon request but the following conclusions can be drawn:
• That the service is well used; • That there is a reasonable level of satisfaction with the current service; • That there is a high level of demand for the continuation of the service; • That the service users are happy to use the various forms of communication available to them; • That there was some concern over the loss or lack of local knowledge, however, it was felt by Management that this was because respondents had not appreciated that the External Funding Officer would be the current employee.
72
26. In addition to the above a regular opportunity for user consultation is provided online via the website and comments are invited through Funding Advice. The community however, are reluctant to use either of these opportunities, probably through consultation exhaustion.
27. Regular consultation and close working however, takes place with KCC; SV & CDC, the local CVS; Amicus; Health Authorities and others as well as user groups and verbal feed back, and in a few cases written, on the service and its impact are used to guide the service in its development.
Comparison
28. As identified earlier in this report, regular comparison is made of the service against countywide / national and regional results for lottery funded projects and as stated, comparison for Central and EU Government / Trusts / Foundations and Business funds are not readily available in an accessible format and as such a true financial success rating / comparison for the service using this method is not attainable.
29. In comparing the service it is interesting perhaps to consider a few national statistics as drawn up by Lottery Monitor:
• The dedicated Lottery Officer is now an endangered species just 1% of respondents, indeed 80% overall now operate on a wider role, with 51% being External Funding Officers as for Swale. • Lottery Officers in the main are linked to traditional departments, leisure; sports; arts; tourism; etc, whereas External Funding Officers or those with a similar remit are attached to corporate operations and have a wider community regeneration role. • Four out of five authorities set no lottery related targets at all whilst 30% of External Funding Officers do have targets. Financial targets range from £130,000 to £7,000,000 per annum (Note: these figures include both County and District Officers). Non-financial targets are usually based around the number of applicants / groups assisted per annum, optimising access to external funding opportunities, or the success rate of applicants. One interesting response was “To keep everyone happy”. • As for Swale working with community groups takes up most of the EFO’s time about 56%. However, most have contacts with lottery bodies, agencies etc. Contact with lottery bodies is diminishing probably reflecting a reduction in funding and opportunities. • The role is largely split between advising community groups, council departments and writing bids, with the latter taking up only a small proportion of the officer time. This probably reflects the high level of demand placed upon the officer’s for advice and indeed most have probable as a result taken a similar approach to that of Swale. • Whilst networking through forums such as Kent External Funding Officers is seen as useful, 40% of respondents prefer to work alone when assessing projects.
The above national analysis reflects a very similar role and approach to that applied by the EFO for Swale.
30. It is also useful to consider how other authorities provide advice and the following are a cross section of responses from Kent:
Medway Council – A Unitary Authority: Medway Council’s bidding unit assists the Medway area to secure funding and consists of 3 staff, the Head of Bidding, a Bidding Officer and a part time PA. The service offers five main levels of support both internally to officers and externally to local VCO’s: information gathering and dissemination; partnership bid writing , proposal development and advisory
73 service; project profiling using Grantfinder and other sources of information; capacity building and training both internally and externally; and a bid tracking, monitoring and evaluation service.
The unit takes its priorities from the Medway Councils key services funding priorities based upon need, cross-checked with the councils strategic documents. The bidding unit also works closely with the voluntary sector through the Local Strategic Partnership and concentrates on partnership work both internally and externally in its funding activity and advise.
Shepway District Council: Shepway DC do not employ an External Funding Officer as a single point of contact for funding enquires from local residents, community groups, businesses or coordinating bidding across the Council. However, as for Swale and indeed all authorities including those listed below many departments are involved in bidding for funds i.e. housing, planning, engineers, highways, leisure etc.
The Partnerships & Regeneration unit, which includes Regeneration, Economic Development, and Community Engagement has developed a fair amount of experience in securing external funding for the authority from a wide range of sources - Central Government, PFI, SEEDA, SRB, AIF, other government Agencies, Lottery, Europe, Sponsorship, and to a lesser degree Charitable Trusts.
The unit fields the bulk of funding enquiries from local people, groups etc, and do offer a grant-finding service using Grantfinder however, they comment that this is not well used as they find much of the information is available free elsewhere. In this respect they do a fair amount of “signposting” to other organisation like Kent Rural Community Council, the local CVS and more recently Marsh Forward their Market Town programme - all of which offer a fund search service using Funderfinder one of the main competitors of Grantfinder.
Dartford Borough Council: Dartford BC employ a Regeneration Officer who has responsibility for External Funding advice and acts as a single point of contact for funding enquires from local residents, community groups, businesses etc. The officer advises both internally and externally and carries out an active community role including working across authorities with Gravesham BC providing an annual Funding Fayre. The authority does have a small match funding budget to support Urban Projects.
Gravesham Borough Council: The funding department at Gravesham BC employ an External Funding Officer as a single point of contact for funding enquires from local residents, community groups, businesses etc. Who’s role it is to source funds for council projects as well as assisting all other organisation that are based within the boundaries of Gravesham. The EFO estimates that 70% of his time is spent in favour of non council projects.
Tunbridge Wells Borough Council: Tunbridge Wells BC has no specific external funding officer, however, as stated above many departments are involved in bidding for funds from EU, Government, Lottery and other sources including: housing, planning, engineers, highways, leisure etc,. They comment that the latter has had the most success with lottery funding.
Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council: Tonbridge & Malling advise that they, like others do not have a dedicated officer resource to deal with external funding. The overall issue is met by various officers around the Council dealing with specific projects as the opportunity arises.
The above examples show that there is a varied approach across authorities in Kent in addressing the need to assist the council, its partner organisations, local groups and individuals to access funding from external sources. The level of activity is largely determined by the resources available and this is reflected in the results for each district.
74
31. The impact of a dedicated Lottery or External Funding officer can be seen from statistics that are available upon request, however, financial funding success is not wholly attributable to the provision of a service other factors play their part including:
• the level of deprivation; • the availability of local skills / community champions; • the number and restraints surrounding appropriate projects (e.g. Shurland Hall; Sheerness Dockyard compared to the Historic Dockyard at Chatham); • the number of dedicated officers providing the support (Medway have a team of three); • the availability of support funding from the authority for projects, Maidstone for instance when last requested had £70,000 per annum.
These must be taken into consideration when assessing the success of the role.
32. A recent report from the office of the Chief Cultural & Leisure Officers Association (CLOA) was drawn up in partnership with the Local Government Association and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and voluntary organisations and provides a guide to good practice for local authorities on maximising opportunities from the lottery and giving assistance to local organisations and community groups. This guidance therefore it is suggested can be used as an assessment or benchmark for the current External Funding Service and the Borough’s approach to funding in general. The salient points of the report are provided below as a guide and the full report is available upon request.
• Adapt a strategic approach to lottery funding • Establish strong links with lottery distributors • Provide co-ordination between different sources of funds • Ensure that different departments within the local authority work together • Provide help for small organisations and community groups • Provide access to local authority services • Disseminate information on lottery funding • Work closely with local partnerships • Share good practice
How does the Swale External Funding Service measure up to these guidelines?
33. The service adopted a strategic approach to advice provision in 1999 which was recently updated at Members request to include policy changes, and linking overtly to the medium term financial strategy and recently formed community plan. Particular attention is placed upon areas of special need and issues raised, identified through statistical evidence such as the indices of deprivation. However, it is recognised that the strategy is a living document and will need further revision in the light of the outcome of this report, the CPA recommendations and the latest statistical evidence.
34. Strong links have been established with the Lottery distributors for some time with a number of specific events i.e. Lottery Conference; Sport England Service Level Agreement; and specific project meetings. The recent introduction of Development Officers by Lottery bodies has added to this exchange and the EFO has an active dialogue with all distributors. The EFO attends all appropriate meetings including: Kent External Funding Officers (KEFOG); Local Authority Lottery Link Officers (LALLO); Lottery Monitor Conference etc, to ensure that the latest information is available to the community through the service. However, as found nationally there is a movement away from lottery funding streams as the best source of external funding for projects and therefore a reduction in contact levels.
75
35. The EFO through various means Grantfinder and the Directory of Social Change databases, Government Funding website etc is aware of and has access to information on funding criteria from most sources, including European Union; Central, Regional and Local Government, Trusts and Foundations, Businesses etc, and providing a point of expertise with a broad understanding of the different opportunities for developing funding packages.
36. There is a multi-layered approach to external funding operated by the Borough. Specialist officers are responsible for bidding to funds within their area of expertise e.g. Economic Development Officers will develop strategic bids for funding e.g. INTERREG etc, There will also be strategic partnerships where more than one discipline is involved e.g. Thames Gateway; Healthy Living Centres. The EFO’s role in part is to provide a point of information to advise these officers / partnerships.
37. As for his colleagues across the country, much of the EFO’s work involves helping small organisations and community groups to find a source of funding for their project acting as enabler and facilitator. This is the point at which often advice on charities, companies, constitutions, VAT and business planning is sought.
38. One area for development in future years is providing access to local authority services such as: professional design services; legal services; and financial planning. Whilst this has in the past been used sparingly – HLC’s etc, its future development may be used as a contribution to projects - “In Kind” support.
39. Information systems set up in 1999 have proved most effective disseminating information on lottery and other funding opportunities and providing direct links to county, regional and national services. Promotion of all Lottery bodies is a priority. The service website is used as a benchmark for other authorities from further afield such as Spelthorne BC. These systems as identified in this report are under constant scrutiny and new developments are taking place.
40. The service works closely with local partnerships; voluntary bodies; neighbouring authorities working across boundaries wherever and whenever appropriate.
41. The EFO uses every opportunity to learn from and share good practice
42. In addition to the above it has been concluded that the service as provided in Swale is fairly unique in that the advisory information systems, as far as can be established, are not freely available elsewhere. This conclusion is drawn from request received from other Kent based community groups for advice and guidance using either Funding Advice or the website. Examples are: Thanet; Tunbridge Wells; Shepway; Gravesham and Medway..
43. Other than successful lottery projects on an annual basis performance information from other authorities, such as application success rates, is not to hand and cost comparisons are considered inappropriate.
Competition
44. The service has few true competitors, however, the following groups and organisations can be considered in this light:
• KCC – External Funding; Economic Development and European Units as well as Education; Social Services etc. All units being community based have a funding role affecting and supporting the local services that they provide within Swale but are service specific or take a more regional approach.
76 • SV & CDC the local CVS – work with and seek funds and provide advice for local charitable organisations for social projects addressing local need. The EFO’s remit however, has a wider focus addressing all funding opportunities for the Borough. • Housing Associations (Amicus); Health Authorities / PCT’s – all have officers within their staffing structures with a funding / community remit. Again the same comments on focus apply. • Swale Borough Council equally has officers whose role includes an element of funding advice and project assistance. This is commented upon earlier and each has a specific remit. • There are a few external consultants in the private sector: e.g. Robert Knibbs (Arts) and Geoff Rutt (Best Value). Most have a specific area of expertise but some will assist across the board.
45. The External Funding Officer finds that working alongside and in partnership with the services competitors has proved a valuable approach to attracting resources to Swale using consultants where appropriate.
Best Value Assessment
46. Service demonstrates a good track record in terms of the relative position of the Borough in Kent since inception in 1999. It is driven by the Council’s priorities, supporting projects within the Cultural Strategy / Community Plan and the Thames Gateway. The existing provision encompasses local knowledge, a wide range of sources, proactive events with funders to inform local organisations together with a bi-monthly newsletter (well received) together with a flexible approach providing appropriate support information aiding capacity building. Organisations can also use the external funding website (linked to SBC site) and will have greater direct access to information through the new Grantnet system.
47. The externalisation (homeworking) of the service is currently under a one year assessment. Associated survey at outset showed continuing demand and reasonable satisfaction with the concept.
48. Comparison with other External Funding operations shows that the service is pitched correctly in terms of range and assistance.
Key Measures of Success/Performance Targets
49. The Service has one Local performance indicator that of External Funding attracted to the Borough during the financial year. The results over the last three years and current position are reproduced below with more information at Appendices A and C. It is emphasised again as per the report that the targets are for all External Funding sources whilst the results are from Lottery sources only and the true financial picture is therefore not known.
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 Performance Indicators (actual) (actual) (actual) Estimate: Obtain £1,000,000 of £1,500,000 £500,000 £1,000,000 external funding by 31st March.
Outturn: £1,779,973 £2,098,365 £1,9453,451 2003/2004 to 13/01/04
77 50. Internally the EFO uses other success factors to assess the performance of the service and to guide its development that reflects a national approach, as identified in the report, and are as follows:
51.
Objective Success Factors Progress to date To advise upon the • Number of enquiries • Advice is ongoing and opportunities and support received and applications regularly provided through a applications from both the supported per annum. number of avenues: public and voluntary • Number and value of Bimonthly magazine - sectors for grant funding successful applications. Funding Advice; the Internet; from all possible sources. • Applicant / Customer and through direct project feedback. support. • Timely delivery of Funding Advice to the • A Swale Funding Fayre has community - bimonthly been investigated and whilst • Development and considered good, timing and maintenance of the Internet the now proposed annual service. Kent / Medway Fayre would suggest a partnership approach as the way forward – currently under discussion
To prioritise and support • Support and advice • Priority’s in 2004/ 2005 those projects which provided to key are to support projects that coincide with the developments and Swale are associated with the Borough’s strategic aims Priority Projects Thames Gateway and have broad support. development and the Community Plan. • Current activity is centred around the development and funding of the Community Enterprise Hubs. • Development of the Swale Priority Projects list will support this process.
To research and promote • Access provision to • Grantfinder demonstration opportunities for a wider External Funding databases held for Swale officers and use of external funding • Support provided to access codes delivered. databases, through the voluntary and community • Grantnet identified as a Internet and in particular organisations and others, useful tool for voluntary and to voluntary and initially in the use of the community organisations. community organisations. service. Purchased, installation September 2004. • Demonstrations on Grantnet are planned to be either local or as part of the Kent / Medway External Funding Fayre.
To publish guidance for • Publication of • Planned to deliver this the voluntary and appropriate guidance on through the website now community sector on the the formation of Charitable anticipated Autumn / Winter formation of Charitable Trusts, Not-for-Profit 2004. Trusts, Not-for-Profit Companies and on • One option may be to Companies; and Business Planning via the use an additional resource to
78 Business Planning via the Swale website develop this. Internet
To maintain a broad • Regular reviews of • The funding databases awareness of all funding the available resources available are reviewed opportunities available carried out and new regularly to ensure that through access to various opportunities identified for Grantfinder remains the best databases, publications, approval. and most cost effective conferences and • Attendance at source. networking conferences and feedback • The Directory of Social as appropriate. Changes database is used as an additional resource for access to over 4000 Trusts and Foundations • Regional and National conferences are attended where appropriate i.e. Lottery Monitor Conference
To gather and maintain • Recording and • Information is available appropriate statistics on monitoring of appropriate on Lottery Funding achieved projects and their statistical evidence. and records are maintained progression • Development of a on requests, advice given project tracking system by and application appraisals March 2005. carried out. • An appropriate source of successes through Trusts, etc, has yet to be found. • Development during 2004/2005 will include an appropriate tracking system.
Following the review of • Preparation of the • Awaiting outcome of the External Funding Best Value, this report, by final EFO report November Service, October 2003, to December 2004 in time for 2003 now linked to the Best report to Best Value by delivery in February 2005 Value review. December 2004
These are of course reflected in the service objectives as identified below and are recommended as a more appropriate measure of the services success.
Major Issues
Over the past five and half years the following have become clear:
1. That the demand for the service is high and out reaches the capacity of the Officer to meet all needs which has resulted in a strategic approach to support being adopted based on the Councils own strategic aims and objectives. That demand for the service will increase rather than decline as opportunities are extended and the Council’s own funding resources for discretionary services is diminished (see Medium Term Financial Plan). That this does and will impact upon the officers and authorities ability to assist individuals, local groups and organisations with support and advice.
79
2. That there are a number of key areas where specific advice and guidance needs to be developed and made available:
• Need / evaluation; • Project Management; • Business Planning; • Forming Companies; • Forming Charities; • VAT implications for charities and local groups; • Financial Management of projects both through to application and post success.
It is recognised that advice is available from various other sources but is fragmented and groups and individuals are unaware of how to find these sources. It is currently planned to address this via the website, however, one other option being considered in this respect is to provide this information through an additional staff resource.
3. That the community has need of various other forms of advice, such as Professional Design, Legal, and Financial Planning Services, that could be provided as “in kind” support through the departments of the Borough Council.
4. That funding opportunities are always changing, the amalgamation of the Community Fund and New Opportunities Fund to form The Big Lottery Fund for instance, and as such a need for an information service is crucial to maintaining the current success of the community and aiding the Borough in achieving its vision.
5. That small to medium sized community projects could be better supported if a financial commitment from the local authority could be identified as for Maidstone (see Comparison).
Recommendations
1. One year assessment trial regarding the provision of the service on a homeworking basis be continued, with a review of performance and a further survey to gauge customer satisfaction / reaction. If satisfactory service to continue.
2. Consideration to be given to the possibility of additional staff time (from p/t Business Liaison Officer) to assist with the identified key areas of advice guidance (Major issues para. 2)
80 SURE START
Service Background
Sure Start is a central government initiative funded through DfES; it exists to improve the lives of children under 4 and their families in the most deprived wards in England. Sure Start Sheerness (SSS) covers the wards of Sheerness East and Sheerness West. The programme was set up in order to address a history of low quality childcare in Sheerness and to support parents with young children who also wish to enter further education and find work. Staff comprise a small management/admin team (four people) all of whom are SBC employees and twenty five staff seconded from a wide range of other agencies.
Targets are agreed with the Sure Start Unit in GOSE who inspect and carry out regular risk assessments. Monthly monitoring of all contacts with parents/children and quarterly finance returns are required by Sure Start Unit.
Activities range across the child welfare/child health/education and economic development fields and are delivered in partnership with a range of agencies from the statutory and voluntary sectors. These are delivered by professional staff recruited from the health, social welfare and community fields.
Independent evaluation of the programmes activities is carried out every year.
(NB Details of all SSS activities are available for illustration).
SBC's role is principally as the accountable body for all the funds used by the programme. SBC also employs the Management/Administration Team and is accountable for the construction of the new Children and Families Centre is Rose Street.
Challenge
The programme is funded for ten years (as of July 2004 it is in year four of that period). In that time the role of Sure Start Sheerness is to identify the specific needs of children under 4 years old and their families as identified by the community of Sheerness, to find innovative ways of addressing these and to identify ways in which the services may then be 'mainstreamed'.
The agreed funding profile (2001) was that from year seven onwards the funds decrease to zero; the principal challenge has been to identify which of the services provided by the programme should be delivered through other agencies and to secure the resources to enable this to be done.
New funding regimes – including the Children's Centre Initiative – present opportunities for widening the scope of the work, for reaching a bigger group of children (under 5's) and for widening the geographical scope of the programme to include other parts of Sheppey.
Consultation
At every stage users of the services are involved in determining how best the services should be delivered.
Each activity is evaluated according to a protocol agreed by the officer responsible for monitoring and evaluation and the results are fed into the planning processes both at a strategic and at a project level.
81
Parents have played a central role in designing the programme and continue to be central to its development; the Board – itself elected by an electorate comprising >70% parents – has fifteen members of whom 5 are parents of children under 4. The annual evaluation process is carried out by an independent agency which has trained parents in evaluation techniques; those parents are paid to collect the raw data for the evaluations.
Twice every year a public consultation (the SSS Partnership meeting) provides an opportunity for parents and other members of the community to comment on the performance of the organisation, to meet all staff and to influence the programme's development.
Design of the new building was put out to competition and the final winning design was chosen by a panel on which parents were the biggest single block.
SSS parents regularly visit other Sure Start programmes to learn about different ways of working and to share good practice.
The team also maintain regular contact and consult with senior Officers of Kent County Council who are the statutory lead for Childrens’ services in Kent. Good practice is shared in an effort to progress the mainstreaming of new services or that work best.
Comparison
There are eight other Sure Start programmes in Kent, one in Medway and 524 in England. All operate in areas of significant long-term deprivation. SSS staff have developed professional links with their peers in other programmes – particularly in Kent and the South East – and there are regular exchanges of practice and expertise.
SSS was the first Sure Start programme in England to achieve Investors in People Status and it is used regularly by the Sure Start Unit as an exemplar so that staff from other programmes are referred to SSS for advice and practical assistance.
In June 2004 SSS was entered for the Kent Business Awards and finished runner up in its section – a panel of independent judges felt it was the second best business of its kind in the county.
Annually the programme is assessed by the national Sure Start Team against a range of factors from financial management to individual initiative outputs. SSS has consistently been judged as a ‘low risk’ programme.
Competition
Most of the services delivered by the programme – and all the operational services – are contracted out to other agencies which operate within Service Level Agreements to deliver the programme's activities. These are reviewed annually.
There would seem to be little scope for introducing further competition in the area of service delivery. There is a possibility, however, that the accountabilities for the management of the programme may change. The County Council has reached an agreement with GOSE to be a pilot authority for Local Area Agreements (LAAs). The Kent LAA has a number of key objectives centred around childrens’ services, community safety and the environment. It enables the County to secure a range of government resources that have previously been administered by Government departments with a relationship with organisations to deliver at the District Council level. It is likely that the Sure Start funds will be managed by the County Council who will have the flexibility to spend them on Childrens’ services as a whole and as they see fit. There are assurances that spending commitments on the SSS programme for 2005/2006 will be met but the situation concerning the future of the programme is still being negotiated.
82
Best Value Assessment
Note: The current negotiations and discussions concerning the Kent Local Area Agreement with the County Council could help to speed up the mainstreaming process though there is more to do to ensure that the best elements of Sure Start and the resources that accompany its successful initiatives are adopted by the County Council and other partners.
Sheerness Children and Family centre is now constructed and awaiting interior decoration and fitting out
The independent annual evaluation for 2003/04 shows that there is evidence that the programmes activities and services are significantly increasing the confidence of many local parents. The opportunities created by the programme appear to be leading children to be better prepared for their entry to early education.
As an area specific, central government funded programme (the 4 Cs have been addressed above) Sure Start’s role is to develop innovative/responsive services to meet the expressed and changing needs of their client group. Such examples are given through the work of the SS Community midwife and speech therapist where developments will undoubtedly add value to the work of the statutory services.
Key Measures of Success/Performance Targets
All Sure Start programmes are obliged to meet certain nationally agreed targets and to operate within agreed parameters. SSS has consistently exceeded these.
Major Issues
Impending transfer of organisation to KCC control as part of the Kent Local Area Agreement
Issues identified from the annual evaluation include: • Defining more meaningful outcomes to help evaluation and planning of short and long term configuration of services • More challenging strategy of community participation to achieve wider take up of services by more families • Involvement of more fathers • Increasingly engaging families with more complex needs through the work of health and social staff.
Recommendations
Ensure full operational completion of Sheerness Children & Families Centre as close to completion date as possible.
Assist the Board and staff of Sure Start Sheerness in addressing issues raised by the new funding regime which will require funding to come via KCC rather than direct from GOSE.
83 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Service Background
Economic Development is a discretionary service, which the Council has chosen to provide since the early 1980’s, in response to the ongoing difficulties experienced within the local economy caused by structural change. These problems have been characterised by relatively high unemployment and continuing dependence upon manufacturing and other industries that were in sharp decline nationally. In response to these issues the Council has maintained a consistent, overarching policy of encouraging the strengthening the growth and diversification of the local employment base.
The manner in which the service has been provided and the role that the Councils Economic Development Unit have played within the wider organisation has changed significantly over time, in response to changing circumstances and policy context (national regional and local).
Historically the Council has consulted upon and articulated its economic development agenda and work programme through a series of Economic Development Strategies, a legal requirement for authorities that determined they wished to foster economic growth between 1989 and 2000. The current Economic Development Strategy (2000-2005) was the first to set out a strategy for the medium term, as recommended in the Audit Commissions 1999 report ‘A Lifes Work’. Within the document there are five objectives set out:-
I. Assist local companies to grow and develop II. Improve Swales ability to attract inward investment III. Improve the Skills and Job prospects of the local workforce and community IV. Improve the tourism potential of Swale V. Improve the economic, social and cultural activity in Swale’s town centres
Reflecting the absolute and relative improvement in unemployment in particular, and the local economy more generally, the current Economic Development Strategy places less emphasis on employment generation per se than its predecessors. The document has maintained a long-standing focus upon economic diversification and improving the business environment, particularly through key infrastructure improvements, but also highlights Issues of employment quality, income deprivation and the ability of local people to access employment.
These are all issues which were identified by analysis of the statistical baseline (presented in the document) as being areas of relative weakness within the County, regional and national context and underline the continuing underperformance of the Swale economy, despite falling unemployment.
In working towards the objectives set out in the strategy the work of the section has focused on those relating to fostering business growth, improving the investment environment and learning and skills.
Since the Strategy was produced, the Council has emphasised an ongoing commitment to local economic development through the inclusion of “a strong economy” within its Vision for the Borough
The nature of the work programme essentially has fallen into two areas; service provision and what has been termed as strategic influencing and intervention.
Services
Business support services have substantially been provided within or on behalf of Swale through dedicated business support organisations. The principle organisations involved at the local level (Chamber of Commerce and the Enterprise Agency) were supported financially by the Council until 2000/01. At this time the Council resolved that whilst the Council should be supportive, it should be the local business community itself, which maintains and supports such organisations.
84
In 2002 the local Chamber of Commerce, through unrelated financial issues, ceased trading, ending the local provision of chamber and enterprise Agency Services and resulting in the loss of the primary local business network. The Council has not sought to fill this gap, with greater emphasis on a strategic approach to economic development.
However, through the section the Council does continue to provide grants advisory and information services to the business community. There is also a significant, internally orientated provision to other Council services to inform and influence the impact policy and provision has on the local economy.
Grants Advisory Service - Provided in one form or another since 1993, the business grants advisory service commenced when the Borough was first awarded Assisted Area Status. Since 1993 the Council has chosen to provide this service and in 1996 a new partnership arrangement between the relevant District Authorities and Business Link Kent led to the creation of a single service for all the relevant parts of the County.
Information and Statistics – Data is collected from a range of sources relating to the local economy, including labour market information. Data, analysis and opinion is provided to help inform (and encourage) private sector investment and support service provision and policy development both externally and internally.
Property Information – Local intelligence on the property market is gathered through regular contact with developers, agents and occupiers. A regularly updated list of available commercial property and land is published on the Councils website and in hard copy (on a bi- monthly basis) and enquiry information stored and analysed.
Inward Investment / Promotion – The Council has chosen to undertake little or no direct promotion to encourage investment since 2001. Engagement in the encouragement of investment is therefore essentially reactive to enquiries received either directly or through a range of intermediaries. The principles governing the promotion of Swale within this context is the influencing of investment decisions through the provision of clear information and the creation of a ‘route of least resistance’, acting as a conduit through which investors can engage with the necessary people and procedures.
Strategic co-ordination, partnership and projects
This has historically featured as an important element in the work programme with corporate priorities aligning closely with the local economies needs, not least in the form of key infrastructure improvements. However, in recent years it is a role that has developed, with the recommendation of the Economy Scrutiny Panel after its 2002 review of the Economic Development Strategy, at the direction of the Councils Executive and through changing external circumstances, with the emergence of the Thames Gateway as a national regeneration priority.
The ‘strategic co-ordination’ role has involved taking the ‘working lead’ in key lobbying efforts and co-ordinating and providing the Swale Borough Council input into the North Kent Area Investment Framework, the Sustainable Communities Plan and the North Kent Priority Investment Programme.
Strategic partnership has been driven principally by implementation of projects arrived at through these processes, including the Sittingbourne Northern Relief Road, construction skills and the Bio-accelerator project at Kent Science Park. However, there is work outside of the Thames Gateway/North Kent context that has been advanced, most recently the development of a draft Swale Learning Strategy and the Sittingbourne Learning Hub.
85
Challenge
Should the Council continue to provide a dedicated economic development function?
Swale has a much improved local economy, since the dark days of 1993, with registered unemployment at a historically low level of 2% (Nov 2004). Therefore the basis upon which the Council promotes an active policy to promote economic regeneration should be considered.
The existing Economic Strategy recognised several structural weaknesses within the local economy as the basis for intervention, despite falling unemployment, namely the ongoing reliance upon manufacturing and low skill/low pay sectors; the low average wages and incomes found in the Borough and the poor skills base amongst the local population.
The current statistical base demonstrates that the local economy retains these characteristics. Thus whilst the baseline may have shifted in a positive direction, the economy does demonstrate continued underperformance. This is in contrast to the Councils vision for a strong economy.
The importance of the economic cycle must also be recognised within this context. The advances that have been made in recent years have been in a climate of national economic growth over a relatively sustained period. It is important that the area continues to secure investment during this positive economic climate, seeking to continually improve resilience to an inevitable future global/national economic downturn.
The overt manner in which the Council seeks to promote economic regeneration and the resources that it dedicates to this is currently through a dedicated service. However, it is also through a number of other statutory and non-statutory activities that the Council impacts upon and influences the development and performance of the local economy. A dedicated economic development function must add value to the process by: -
• influencing, supporting and enhancing the positive impact of the Councils wider service delivery upon the local economy • influencing the services delivered by other agencies to promote local economic well being • Provide an operational and policy focus to promote economic regeneration, including undertaking areas of work that would otherwise not be addressed.
The measurement of the sections ‘added value’ by way of direct economic impact is not always possible, with many other local, regional, national and international factors impacting upon local economic performance. However a combination of local performance indicators (see Annex 2), the delivery of all but one project identified within the strategy (and others that have since come forward) and the views of internal and external partners are testament to the overall benefits derived from the activity of the service.
Are the objectives and projects within the current Economic Development Strategy relevant?
At a draft stage (December 1999 – January 2000) the current strategy was widely consulted upon, with internal and external partners and the local business community. There was evidence of strong support for the objectives and priorities identified within the strategy. However, since this time there has been no specific attempt to consult with the local business community or partner organisations on the Strategy’s content.
There does remain ongoing dialogue with both the business community and partner organisations, which have substantially reinforced the objectives which the strategy sets out,
86 particularly with regard to the provision of new transport infrastructure (A249 Iwade to Queenbrough Improvements and the Northern Relief Road) and the need to address learning and skills issues .
There have also been more specific consultations carried out by the Council and its partners, (for instance through the development of the Swale Learning Strategy, the first draft of the local plan and the Sheerness Market Town Healthcheck) which have also confirmed many of the strategies key projects as of continuing importance.
All this said, improved intelligence regarding the local economy and labour market, the effective delivery of many of the priorities that the strategy established and the changing partnership and funding landscape suggests that, as a minimum, the emphasis between objectives, the specific priorities of the Council and the manner in which it seeks to intervene need to be revisited. Thus If the Council wishes to continue to articulate its economic development objectives through a dedicated strategy document then an urgent revision is required.
Should the services increasing emphasis upon strategic influencing and intervention continue?
The potential availability of resources as part of the Thames Gateway and North Kent has been the most significant influence upon the increased emphasis upon this area of work. In particular the bid for sustainable communities funding was co-ordinated on behalf of he Council through the service, resulting in an offer of over £23 million directly for Swale projects. A similar role has also been played in taking the lead co-ordinating role for the authority within the context of the regional economic strategy and ‘single pot funding’ via the Regional Development Agency, SEEDA, Kent Prospects and other strategic documents requiring a local economic perspective and input.
It is likely that the Thames Gateway/North Kent route will remain the largest source of external funding to achieve regeneration objectives in the coming years. The introduction of Swale Forward, the local delivery vehicle for the Governments sustainable communities funding, has meant that in this regard at least, the Economic Development Service has relinquished its lead role in representing the Borough and co-ordinating efforts.
The service does however exercise considerable resource supporting Swale Forward, which itself operates with a limited executive and a continued focus here could provide an ongoing stream of substantial investment.
However, the Thames Gateway arena cannot be the only area in which intervention and influencing are focused to advance the economic regeneration agenda on broad front. There must be wider engagement with other agencies, which promotes not only specific project development but informs and influences mainstream provision to the benefit of the local economy must be explored further into the future.
Internally there are varying degrees but generally good levels of partnership work. There are particularly strong links into planning services, through both the local plans and development control sections.
Externally partnership work outside of the regeneration field is less well developed, although progress has recently been made on the learning and skills agenda, within which engagement with a number of bodies is necessary. Real progress has been made in this context with the Local Education Authority, the Learning and Skills Council and others but such work is at early stage and requires a long-term commitment to affect real change. These and other links need to be promoted directly and through the Local Strategic Partnership and Swale Forward.
87
Should the Council maintain or improve its current ‘service provision’ through Economic Development?
With relatively limited resources and the increased emphasis upon the strategic role identified, services provided have predominantly become reactive to internal and external enquiries and requests made of the section.
As a predominantly reactive provision it is true that a substantial proportion of external enquiries/issues will need to continue to be dealt with, irrespective of any conscious decision regarding the future of the service.
Nonetheless there remain elements of the provision, which the Council chooses to undertake, most significantly the collection and publication of property information and the provision of a dedicated grants advisory service.
The grant advisory service is specifically resourced through a dedicated officer employed on a casual basis and through a consultancy partnership with Business Link Kent and other districts. As such the service been less affected by the encroachment of the Strategic role that unit has increasingly played. As close to a stand alone service as is provided through the section, there is a relatively simple choice for the Council as to whether it wished to provide this or otherwise.
The collection and publication of property information similarly does not greatly impinge upon the workload of the section, but has a more direct link with the wider strategic role. As a process the gathering of information maintains a link with a wide range of commercial property interests. The information received and the links maintained add real value to the intelligence base from which the Council operates not only in economic regeneration but also in planning terms. It also adds value to the handling of general enquiries and attracting new investment from both local businesses and inward investors.
Consultation
The Current Economic Development Strategy was subject to wide consultation in early 2000, through distribution of a draft to employers and a range of groups and partner organisations.
Through 2002 the economy scrutiny panel considered the Economic Development Strategy, involving input and evidence from a wide range of individuals, partner organisations and local businesses. This process focused upon each objective within the strategy. in relation to Business Development, Inward Investment and Infrastructure and Learning and Skills the Scrutiny Panel reached the following conclusions, based on the evidence provided. (NB paraphrased conclusions to summarise):-
• Dedicated Business support should be provided through others, although the Council should consider supporting business start-up services, which are not currently provided for.
• That the Council should to maintain the information and service level it provides to business as this supports the flow of investment into the Borough
• The maintenance of a ‘hands-on’ role as well as the strategic role was important to ensure that the strategic did not become removed from business needs.
• Greater priority must be afforded to securing the infrastructure requirements
88 • Greater involvement/engagement in the learning and skills agenda is necessary to support the Borough aspirations of moving towards a more knowledge based economy
Since publication of the strategy policy led consultation with the local business community has been limited to specific issues (e.g. learning and skills) or through an ongoing dialogue with the business community directly and through local representative organisations.
These include the local branches of the North Kent Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of Small Business, the Private Sector Liaison Group (principally formed from property and development interests), the Faversham Enterprise Partnership and the Island Think Tank.
This informal contact reinforces the objectives and projects as being important to the local economy and local business. There is an opportunity for the Council to formalise this contact through the creation of an economic forum for the Borough. This would provide a clearer means by which consultation with the business community could be conducted to inform policy and project development across the Councils services.
Service User Consultation
In addition to the short, simple customer satisfaction questionnaires, sent to all enquirers, a survey of both general enquirers and users of the Grants advisory service have been carried out, the results of which can be seen in Annex 1. The limited returns indicate that customers are generally very satisfied with both standard of service and the information and advice that is provided.
Whilst day to day contact and informal and dialogue do much to inform the work of the section there is a significant need to undertake a much wider formal consultation exercise. With the achievement (imminent or actual) of many of the priorities identified within the current strategy and an identified need to review this it would seem that now is an opportunity to establish where a new focus for project work and strategic intervention is required.
Comparison
Comparison between Economic Development functions within local authorities is notoriously difficult, with no clear national indicators established and with the operational emphasis within different localities varying enormously.
The Audit Commission is currently conducting a national pilot of Indicators for economic regeneration, involving a number of local authorities. The suite of indicators are divided into performance indicators and contextual Indicators, which measure local economic performance against that of other districts.
Measurement of change in contextual indicators does not provide a basis for measurement of operational performance or comparison, with a very large number of global, national, regional and local factors impacting upon local economies, of which Council interventions are but one small element. However comparison between Swale and other UK locations re-enforces the continued relative underperformance of the local economy overall, as seen in the State of the Borough report published recently.
Within the pilot use of quantative, operational, comparisons are made, as shown in the table below.
89
Audit Commission operational performance Indicators
Business Investment ECR18 a) Total number of 'inward investment' enquiries dealt with per annum
Business support - start up ECR20 a) Number of new business start-ups supported in the local area c) Average cost of local authority business support per new business start-up supported
d) User satisfaction with business start-up support (SBS indicator) Business support - units & managed ECR21 a) Number of jobs created and safeguarded in workspace business units managed workspace for economic development purposes
b) Survival rates of businesses in managed workspace (i.e after two years)
c) Cost (i) per job supported, (ii) per m2 of floorspace (i.e. subsidy provided)
Business support - other ECR22 a) Number of business support enquiries for advice and information received per annum
b) Cost per business support enquiry dealt with
Community Enterprise & the Social ECR23 a) Jobs created by support to community Economy enterprise b) Income generated by community enterprise
c) Cost per job through community enterprise support
The limited nature of these indicators reflects the difficulties outlined above and of these only ECR18 and ECR22 relate to the economic development service provided by Swale Borough Council. Furthermore these relate to comparison of enquiry numbers that are dealt with by the Council and as stated the generation of enquiries is not in itself a priority for the Council.
The operational indicators used by the Council for its own service and performance in recent years against these can be found at Annex 2
One area in which a clear comparison is possible relates to the provision of the Grants advisory service. As demonstrated against the table below, through the grants advisory service Swale has performed well in achieving grant offers, when compared with other eligible Local Authority areas in Kent, particularly when it is noted that both Thanet and Shepway hold a higher level of Assisted Area Status, offering more generous grant packages.
The success of the advisory service in Swale has consistently been excellent in relation to other Kent Districts, coming second only to Thanet in the number of successful applications each year. This reflects not only the use of expert consultants but the pro-active stance the Council has adopted to the service through monitoring planning applications and contacting the local business community to remind them of the opportunities.
90 Grant applications submitted for the period during 2003/04 Financial Year
Within No of Grant Investment advisory applications awarded Jobs Jobs supported LA Area scheme awarded £ Safeguarded Created £ Ashford no 0 0 0 0 0 Canterbury no 1 45332 0 0 113341 Dartford no 0 0 0 0 0 Dover yes 0 0 0 0 0 Gravesham no 0 0 0 0 0 Medway yes 2 100600 7 5.5 1099535 Shepway yes 2 156000 29 33.5 2061523 Swale yes 6 159909 0 21 1305520 Thanet yes 5 1718000 122 412 5750000
Year on year performance in securing business grants in Swale through the Advisory service 2001/02 – 2003/04
No of Successful Investment Grant No of Grant Jobs Supported Awarded Year Applications applications created £ £ 2001/02 8 7 41 2,525,177 678,304 2002/03 8 7 8 982,000 100,750 2003/04 10 6 21 1,305,520 159,909
The table above shows that the return for the investment put into the service fluctuates between years. This reflects not only business investment levels in the area, but also the manner in which the grant regimes are managed. Having been transferred to different managing bodies the application processes and criteria have been amended. In relation to the most common grant to support general investment, these have now become far more restrictive
Competition
In choosing to continue to promote a dedicated, direct service to support economic regeneration, through a predominantly strategic role there are few options that present themselves to the Council in terms of delivery.
Should the Council continue to choose to have direct involvement or make direct interventions then it is only through an in-house provision or contracting with a third party that this can be delivered.
Contracting with private consultants will, on a like for like basis, almost inevitably involve greater cost. It would also potentially lose the highly valuable and well developed local knowledge that is required to provide an effective service. Alternatively the Council could seek to contract with a public sector operator(s) or partnership based bodies for the delivery of services have not been explored for the purposes of this report.
The one clear potential opportunity for the Council to consider such an arrangement is through Swale Forward. As an existing partnership there is an established mechanism through which any such arrangement can be managed. There are also very close operational links between the work of Swale Forward and that of the Economic Development Section.
91 However, there may be concerns over the potential for conflict within such a partnership arrangement, within which the views and priorities of individual organisations may diverge. In such instances, and with no dedicated in-house expertise there may be increased difficulty in the Council reaching an independent perspective upon certain key issues. It may also prove more difficult to shift the emphasis of work to respond to changing circumstances or policy context.
Best Value Assessment
Whilst the local economy has improved significantly since the early 1990’s there is a continued underperformance compared with the County, regional and national context.
Such a position is in contrast to the Councils vision for a strong economy and maybe further compromised by inevitable future down-turns in the national economy. Thus there remains a rationale for the Council to continue to support economic development in some form.
The Councils choice to promote economic development through a predominantly strategic function, rather than service delivery appears appropriate within the context of the available resource and the securing of substantial regeneration monies, not least via the sustainable communities plan.
Within this strategic role there does remain a need to focus not only upon the securing of new external resources but influencing of existing provision and resource to help create the necessary environment for a strong economy. Real progress has been made in this context with the Local Education Authority, the Learning and Skills Council and others but such work is at early stage and requires a long-term commitment to affect real change. These and other links need to be promoted directly and through the Local Strategic Partnership and Swale Forward.
The remaining elements of service delivery provide through the economic development unit are predominantly reactive and would to some degree represent a continuing demand upon the Councils resource, irrespective of any policy decisions regarding the future of the service.
Should the Council wish to continue to support economic regeneration, particularly through a predominantly strategic role, there are few options that present themselves to the Council in terms of alternative delivery models to that currently in place. The latter has the advantage in terms of issues relating to control and community leadership in the context of what is key driver for the well being of the local community.
Key Measures of Success/Performance Targets
Current operational /local indicators are found at Annex 2 and Audit commission pilot indicators in the comparison section above.
Major Issues
Should the Council wish to continue to provide an economic development service then there is an urgent requirement to review its strategy and action plans. Articulation of these through a dedicated document will require consultation with service users, the business community and residents, at a level that has not been carried out since the production of the existing strategy in 2000.
92 In articulating and subsequently implementing and reviewing any economic development strategy there is a need to establish a clearer mechanism, for ongoing consultation with the local business community. Representative organisations are disparate, some parochial and individually represent a relatively small proportion of the local business community.
A clearer means by which consultation with the business community could be conducted would also inform policy and project development across the Council and its partners wider service delivery.
However, the grants advisory service and the property information services do continue to be supported on a proactive basis. The property information service has significantly contributed to the intelligence base from which the council operates. Grants advice has historically generated substantial returns by way of financial assistance secured, but with a changing operating environment returns are expected to fall.
A reactive response is maintained in terms of enquiries for information and statistics and towards inward investment enquiries received either directly or through a range of intermediaries. The principles governing the promotion of Swale within this context is the influencing of investment decisions through the provision of clear information and the creation of a ‘route of least resistance’, acting as a conduit through which investors can engage with the necessary people and procedures.
Recommendations
Maintain current Strategic approach to Economic Development and property/ information/inward investment service which supports the above approach by contributing to the intelligence base.
Consign as much information as possible to the website and structure to ‘working with Business’ standard to improve communication and help reduce time spent providing basic information.
Investigate the Single Business Account as a corporate response for handling enquiries from businesses improving corporate information and response.
Review Economic Development Strategy and action plan.
Establish a clearer mechanism, for ongoing consultation with the local business community.
In the light of falling returns Members may wish to consider curtailing the Grant advisory service
93 ANNEX 1 RESULTS OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEYS
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CUSTOMER SURVEY - Questionnaires were sent to 100 companies and individuals, randomly selected from enquiries received over the past 18 months. No of responses: 11 (11% response rate)
Do you live / Is your company located in Swale? Yes 5 No 5 Partly 1 (?)
How did you learn about our business support services? Press article 1 Yellow Pages 2 Website 5 Other 3 *(asked to state) • company provides other services to the Council • has used EDU services previously • other contact in Council
What was the enquiry about? (tick more than one box if appropriate) General Info 2 Business Grants 2 ICPR 3 Bus Directory 4 Relocation 0 Training 0 Other 2 *(asked to state) • request for lists of companies & businesses • company not aware they had made an enquiry
How effective were our staff in dealing with your enquiry? Poor Poor/Good Good 2 Good/Excellent 3 Excellent 5 No answer 1
How would you rank the usefulness of the advice given by our staff to you over the phone? Poor Poor/Good Good 4 Good/Excellent 3 * Excellent 3 No answer 1 • 1 comment: similar services with adjacent authorities not so good
Did the information you received meet your needs? Yes 10 No N/a 1
Was the information you requested provided within an appropriate timescale? Yes 9 No N/a 1 Other 1 * was aware there may be a delay in providing info.
94 FREE GRANTS ADVISORY SERVICE SURVEY - Questionnaires were sent to 30 companies. Companies were randomly selected from those who have had contact with EDU (John Amey and/or Grants Advisors) over the previous 2 years. No of responses: 8 (27% response rate). All respondents are currently located in Swale.
How did you find out about the Grants Advisory Service? Press article 0 Website 2 Other 6 *(asked to state) • Word of mouth 2 • Phone 1 • Bank manager/accountant 1 • SBC promotion leaflet 1 • No comment 1
Did you find it easy to make an appointment for the initial assessment? Yes 8 No 0
Did you find the assessment service provided by the Business Liaison Officer useful and worthwhile? Good 1 Good/Excellent 3 Excellent 3 No comment 1
If you subsequently met with a Grants Advisor were you satisfied with the service they provided? Good 1 Good/Excellent 0 Excellent 4 No comment 3
If you decided not to proceed with a grant application, or if you were not successful in your application, were you satisfied with the assessment/advisory service provided? Poor 1 Poor/Good 1 Good 0 Good/Excellent 1 Excellent 5
Do you think the Grants Advisory Service is something SBC should promote? Yes 7 No 1
95 ANNEX 2 Operational Indicators for Swale Borough Council Economic Development Service
2004/05 *As at dec KPI Work Programme 2000/01 2001/02 2002/003 2003/04 2004 No of Business Business 1 Grants facilitated Development 12 7 5 5 1 No of Inward 3 Investments Inward Investment 6 4 5 11 2 No of Property 2 Enquiries serviced Inward Investment 526 483 558 321 64 Business Jobs supported Development & Inward 4 (total from 1+2+3) Investment 190 122 493 224 36 External Funding Business achieved to Development, Inward supported projects Investment & Skills 5 (exc 1) and Learning 413,350 1,656,738 88,650 23,452,709 262,200 Business Development, Inward No of Press Investment & Skills 6 Releases and Learning 3 21 4 5 1 Talks in schools to promote awareness of local 7 economy/industry n/a 11 13 7 6 Business Development, Inward Rural/European Investment & Skills 8 press releases and Learning 3 3
96 TOURISM SERVICE
Service Background
1. Swale BC has operated a tourism service since 1983, promoting and providing information on the whole Borough as a ‘package’ of attractions, accommodation and events spread across the three very distinctive and diverse areas of Faversham, Sittingbourne and the Isle of Sheppey. The rationale for doing so has been to encourage cross visitation throughout the area as a whole. Each area within the Borough does however have its own ‘local distinctiveness’ characterised in text and visual imagery. The generic tourism products of Swale fall broadly within five themed areas - coast, country, marshland, heritage and events. 2. Swale BC is the only District in Kent not to directly run a Tourist Information Centre (TIC) – the Council supports the Faversham TIC through the Faversham Society who manage the operation with an annual grant of £6,750, and has information points in the reception of Swale House, Sittingbourne and the Leisure Complex in Sheerness where personal enquiries can be addressed and information can be collected during venue opening hours. Visitor information is available at both district offices in Sheerness and Faversham. 3. The difficulty in measuring tourism activity and performance has been historically difficult with local authorities providing the tourism function in a variety of ways often with corporate priorities driving the collection of data and commissioning research which does not allow for effective cross-District tourism partnership working. Only two national models currently exist for tourism performance measurement – the ‘STEAM’ model and the ‘Cambridge Model’; the latter has been the preferred Kent choice. In 2000, the first ‘Cambridge Model’ study to estimate the economic contribution (nationally comparable) of tourism showed activities generating £104m into the local economy and the creation/protection of 2,272 FTE jobs. In 2002, a further study estimated the economic contribution to have risen to £137m and the creation of 2,939 FTE jobs. No new study has been commissioned by Swale as the outcome of a joint external funding bid by Kent Tourism, Tourism South East and the Districts to the European Interreg IIIA programme has been awaited which will allow for collaborative research and benchmarking of tourism performance to be pursued. Clearly the benefits of this approach are sound in that to date, it has been difficult to make direct comparison with other Kent authorities as studies are not undertaken at the same time and do not allow for performance comparisons to be made. This situation will be resolved following financial commitment from all district authorities to run the ‘Cambridge Model’ in 2005. 4. Whilst comparative tourism performance measurement can be now be planned and achieved it is not possible to make a direct comparison with other authorities in how the tourism functions are delivered. There is no one single model which each District employing various approaches to tourism marketing, development and visitor services; some functions are split across an authority or partnership arrangements with the private and voluntary sectors. May 2003 saw a Council wide review of services, in which budget and staffing were reduced, the latter to one member – the Tourism Development Officer (TDO). The marketing function was re-focused with resources redirected to delivery of one brochure in partnership with the Swale Tourism Association for local promotion and a short break visitor guide through the 1 sub-regional partnership of Medway and Maritime Kent. Emphasis was given to an ‘enabling role’ focussing on Development & Partnership. The former to improve the quality, capacity, facilities, new businesses (including advice) and to develop new markets e.g. eco/green tourism. The latter to work with strategic and local partners to enhance and promote all aspects of Borough tourism, particularly accommodation and attractions.
1 In Kent, local authorities are divided into three sub-regions for collaborative marketing and development work – Canterbury and Coastal Kent, Heart of Kent and Medway and Maritime Kent
97 5. However, any tourism activity generates enquiries. In Swale’s case these are mainly 2 telephone and Internet. A Destination Management System (DMS) was introduced to allow self or aided (for a fee) accommodation booking service. The DMS was introduced in 2000 with grant support from Kent County Council – the first of its type in the county. Kent Tourism and Districts are developing these systems using local 3 databases with linkages to the VisitBritain site .
Challenge
6. The service is discretionary and is currently being run on the minimum staff resource of one Officer and a budget of £53,890. The level of organisational commitment to tourism remains unclear. It does however contribute to all aspects of the Councils main Vision of a Healthy Environment, Strong Economy and Thriving Community. Tourism projects are at the heart of the Local Strategic Partnership’s thematic group – Leisure and Culture but the challenge is to ensure that regeneration opportunities are maximised through other thematic groups (see additional reference ‘7’ below). 7. The service works to a tourism strategy, which forms part of the Economic Development Strategy 2000-05; the former reflects the key priorities of Central 4 Government as well as those of the former Regional Tourist Board and Kent Tourism of the same period. In addition, priorities for the tourism industry are also reflected within Swale BC’s Cultural Strategy, which undergoes an annual review to take account of changing priorities especially in the context of the ‘Thames Gateway’ agenda. Officer representation ensures that the tourism priorities are also recorded and advanced through the Local Strategic Partnership (Leisure and Culture Group) Whilst the tourism strategy does not reflect the new priorities which have emerged through the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister’s (ODPM) Sustainable Communities Fund, the service clearly does have a role to play in supporting regeneration in the Thames Gateway, including Swale. The TDO has ensured tourism in Swale is represented in a number of the key strategic priorities including the development of the (North) Kent Regional Park, which builds on existing projects in North Kent and 5 contributing to Swale’s own Green Grid . A multi-million pound ecotourism project on the Isle of Sheppey spearheaded by a partnership of Swale BC, Medway Swale Estuary Partnership and a private landowner working through the Elmley Conservation Trust; the latter project will have a national profile and linkages are being made with ongoing strategic work led by other Service Units (projects such as Church Marshes Country Park) contributing to the economic, recreational, environment and health aspects. Projects will address the priorities – sustainability (environmental management and access (‘Tourism for All’). 8. Partnership working is very strong both locally and sub-regionally within the limitations set by the Executive. Swale BC is not a member of the newly formed 6 7 Tourism South East or the Kent Tourism Alliance and does not have a role in the emerging Kent office, which combines both services through a one-stop shop and one membership fee. It is too early to say how this might affect Swale BC in
2 A system, easily networked, which holds information on accommodation, attractions, events and other useful public services and facilities; content can be regularly updated by staff. All systems will connect to the VisitBritain site, which promotes to domestic and overseas visitor markets. 3 VisitBritain is the main delivery vehicle for both domestic and overseas visitors funded by Central Government 4 ‘Tomorrow’s Tourism’ and the eight point plan published by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (2000) 5 A comprehensive network of green spaces and corridors across the urban areas of North Kent, linking with the surrounding countryside 6 Tourism South East – the combined regional tourist boards of the South and South East Regions 7 The marketing ‘arm’ of Kent Tourism and funded through both public and private sector investment for the purposes of marketing Kent as a visitor destination both to the domestic and overseas markets
98 accessing funding which is devolved from the regional development agency (SEEDA) through the regional tourist board (Tourism SouthEast). This is a situation that the TDO is keen to highlight and bring to the attention of the Executive. The growth that Swale is achieving through its regeneration agenda will require new levels of influence to be borne upon strategic tourism agencies if the area is to capitalise on their vast resources particularly in the context of marketing, press and promotion. This will ensure commitment to both the community and civic pride agenda engaging not just visitors to the area but the community too including the business sector in its widest form. Aside from the recognised Thames Gateway region, opportunities to develop new public partnerships exist and external funds have successfully been 8 obtained through LEADER+ . These projects include:
• Blean Rural Tourism Development Study (in partnership with Canterbury City Council and financial support of Forestry Commission and SEEDA - £10,000. The study has comprised a four stage approach:
A product audit and identification of the area’s current visitor profile Visitor Surveys and identification of potential visitor types Research into similar projects nationally Production of a future strategy and recommendations
A further detailed marketing plan has subsequently been commissioned funded by Canterbury City Council, Swale Borough Council and SEEDA and will be available in March 2005
Both studies will focus new partnership development and marketing cross District in 2005/6.
• Mid-Kent Downs Tourism Initiative (in partnership with Maidstone and Ashford Borough Councils and the Kent Downs AONB. A total budget of £120,000 has been achieved for a two year period commencing Autumn 2004 with over £80,000 coming from the European funding programme LEADER +; additional monies have come from the three Districts and the County Council, private sector support from Leeds Castle and South Easter Trains and each of the Districts’ voluntary Tourism Association.
This level of funding has enabled a part time project offer to be appointed to deliver a range tourism initiatives with District Officers. These include: visitor survey, business support programme, village based green travel and tourism modules, joint poster campaign with South Eastern Trains, green accreditation, a ‘green’ guide, website and an awareness campaign for the Mid-Kent Downs area which traverses all three Districts of Swale, Ashford and Maidstone. The role of the tourism professional in each area is to source and co-ordinate local businesses and steer towards programme participation. . • Mid-Kent audio-guiding tours with Turning Points – an initial £10,000 grant obtained from the Transnational LEADER + programme to carry out a feasibility study on using new technology in audio guiding (Global Positioning System) utilising satellite tools in order to provide self guided commentaries both on foot and in-vehicle. The project remains at feasibility stage pending management changes with French Partner Company. The role of the TDO has specifically been to engage neighbouring Districts in the project providing trails for project trials and using local resources such as Tourist Information Centres (TIC’s) for the purposes of visitor surveys.
8 European funding to support a programme totalling £4.293m over the period 2002-07 to “help local rural communities to develop new projects and pilot new ideas for rural regeneration…”
99 • Tourism Food Trails (in partnership with Maidstone and Ashford District Councils, Kent Tourism and Tourism South East). This is a four month pilot project with a total budget of £28,000 (£24,000 of which has been achieved using European monies from the LEADER + programme) which is to be delivered in the spring of 2005. The main objective of the project is the development of themed food trails. The role of the professional tourism officer at the local level is to identify and engage local food producers, tourism and hospitality providers in a dedicated campaign to increase awareness of the local distinctiveness of Kentish produce. Three trails include: The Hop Trail/Wolf of the Woods, Apple Trail/King’s Orchard and Romney Marsh/Gift of the Sea.
The importance of all of the above projects is that they engage partnership working between public, private and voluntary organisations with common aims and objectives. They have helped to re-focus the activities of local area Tourism Associations who now work in a more effective and strategic way to deliver marketing initiatives in particular.
The tourism function within Swale supports existing, new and diversifying businesses through a dedicated business advisory service with a particular focus on quality grading of accommodation and visitor assurance in the attractions sector. A further key area is to advise on effective partnership models which will support and enhance tourism businesses as well as external funding routes (DEFRA/Interreg IIIA/HLF/Awards for All). Development enquiries whilst varied generally seek assistance with the planning process and others require help with external funding applications.
The TDO is part of a Steering Group for the emerging countywide Kent Tourism Academy – a partnership and dedicated tourism resource of local government authorities, business support agencies, further and higher education institutions and other related tourism bodies. The aim of the Academy is to provide a one-stop shop for individuals and businesses within the County. It is hoped that through collaboration, sharing of ideas and best practice that the overwhelming range of tourism training can be re-focused and re- targeted geographically to maximise take-up and to avoid duplication.
However, the effectiveness of the development role is compromised by the necessity to respond to basic enquiries, which can occupy 30 % of the TDO’s time. A further 4% is allocated to facilitating European grants
Alternative provision – • Voluntary – Swale BC facilitated and continues to support a membership 9 tourism organisation – Swale Tourism Association – that was established in l990 and represents the interests of sixty SME’s across the Borough. The relationship between the Association and Swale BC works well and ensures effective engagement of the industry across the Borough and at the local, county and sub- regional. There is Officer and Member representation on the Executive Committee.
• Commercial – elements of the service could be provided commercially, with the most likely route being through the newly formed Kent office of the combined forces of Tourism South East and Kent Tourism however the strategic remit requires co-ordination at the local level, which needs to be retained under Council control.
• Not for Profit - A ‘sub area’ tourism organisation now exists in Faversham (FATA) – April 2004. While this will strive to look after that area others would have to develop to cover Sittingbourne and Sheppey. Individually they will struggle to achieve sufficient promotional networking to operate effectively to benefit their members. The Faversham Enterprise Partnership has recently commissioned a study into how FATA
9 Swale based organisation dealing with local tourism issues but also addressing the broader national and international issues to promote and develop Swale by attracting more visitors. Copies of minutes are available to illustrate range of issues discussed and consulted upon.
100 might best work effectively at the local level and within the industry’s tourism hierarchy. It is anticipated that the report will provide a steer on effective partnership working and present best practice models, which may be suitable to Faversham as well as in the wider Borough context. The anticipated publication date is March 2005. Local businesses and members of the Swale Tourism Association indicate that the Swale ‘package’ offers a better outcome in support of their individual business plans; the work is delivered through sub-groups which requires central co-ordination and is provided by the TDO as part of her role.
• Other Councils - Partnership work is undertaken with other councils in terms of project development, as is promotion on a North Kent sub- regional scale. Direct provision is difficult due areas effectively being in competition, also because of the identification of the respective area with the relevant authority.
Consultation
With limited resources (financial and human) every opportunity has been taken to build 10 consultation into on-going project work . This has recently included: 11 • East Kent Hotel Study (July 2003) – East Kent Tourism Panel • The Blean (May 2004) – Canterbury City Council, Forestry Commission and SEEDA • Eco-tourism project, Isle of Sheppey (March/April 2004 and July/August 2004) – Swale BC, Medway Swale Estuary Partnership and private landowner • Customer Survey Analysis a joint questionnaire with Community Services – Mount Ephraim Concert (July 2004) and Hop Festival (September 2004) • Branding Workshop for the Isle of Sheppey (to commence 13th October 2004) with key local stakeholders and fora drawn from out-of-area. • Socio-Demographic & Geographic Analysis for the Medway and Maritime Kent guide 2004 and Conversion Analysis
Comparison
The tourism strategy contained within the Economic Development Strategy 2000-05 reflects the national, regional, county and district priorities for the industry. On the one level, conferences, fora, workshops and regular meetings provide tourism professions, business partners and practitioners with opportunities to highlight key issues for research and consultation leading to priority action within key strategic documents. Within Swale these have included: Economic Development Strategy 2000-05, Cultural Strategy 2002-07, Community Plan 2003-08, Green Grid Strategy 2004-06, Market Town Healthcheck 2002-05 12 as well as contributing to the work of Swale Forward.
The Service Plan Statement (annual) with quarterly review and updates of the Key Performance Indicators (Tourism) for internal management meetings reflect the tourism priorities and any significant performance changes. Whilst the service has never been accorded permission to join the National Tourism Best Value Management Group attention has been given to published priorities including an informal annual self-assessment (Business Excellence Model). Reduced staffing resources do not permit additional supporting work outside of current service objectives but is a useful tool in ensuring that current projects are robust in processes, customer/people satisfaction levels, impacts on the community and results/performance. Examples where these criteria have been addressed include the recent studies published and recorded within the ‘consultation’ section.
10 Copies of all studies including consultation can be provided 11 Informal development working group for East Kent comprising local authorities of Shepway, Thanet, Dover, Ashford, Canterbury and Swale with support from Kent Tourism and Tourism SouthEast 12 Delivery vehicle responsible for co-ordinating a programme of projects (£26m) supported by the ODPM’s Sustainable Communities Fund
101 Data is also shared with Kent Tourism who produces a bi-annual Best Value review of District-by-District performance (anticipated publication date November 2004). Data collection is however proving to be inordinately difficult reflecting the increasing pressures of limited staffing resources within the tourism sector of local authorities.
A similar situation has also arisen in extracting comparable date from the Exeter Group producing only two baseline statements but submitting differing data from Sevenoaks and 13 Dover.
The TDO is in membership of the Tourism Society and Swale BC is in membership of the Local Government Association (LGA), British Resorts Association (BRA), Holiday Care Service (Tourism for All UK) having access to a range of services and facilities including training, research, case studies which support and inform development within the Borough.
Competition
The tourism service has a strong ethos and record of partnership working. This commenced in l990 with the development of the Swale Tourism Association and simultaneously the establishment of the sub-regional marketing partnership – Medway and Maritime Kent. Throughout the years this latter partnership has shown both growth and decline in its local authority membership embracing in addition to Swale and Medway its constituent partners, Canterbury, Gravesham and Dartford. The latter two authorities now undertaking little tourism activity except visitor information provision in Gravesend and Canterbury heading the sub- regional partnership of Canterbury and Coastal Kent.
More recently the pressure on public sector finances and diminishing priorities towards funding of discretionary services such as tourism through traditional public sector funding routes has placed new pressures on officers to source new funding externally. Opportunities from Europe (Interreg IIIA and LEADER +), HLF etc have encouraged broader thinking and encourage more innovative partnership working to deliver a range of marketing, development and research projects which cross administrative borders embracing a ‘joined- up’ approach to delivering services to the community and visitors alike. This fresh approach had been challenging and requires a sound knowledge of the industry, its key stakeholders and other agency working to fully represent the tourism interests. However, the new partnership arrangements offer access to additional resources within other local authorities, new learning opportunities, exposure to changing working practices; at the same time, the pressure on authorities in a competitive market is reduced as resources (financial and human) are pooled in more aggressive but effective tactics to capture visitor markets. Geographically Swale is well placed to take advantage of emerging partnership opportunities in all three sub- 14 regional areas . This in itself is advantageous given ‘Swale’ is an administrative name rather than a destination and is difficult, if not impossible to market effectively. Strong products evident in the three diverse areas of the Borough – Faversham, Sittingbourne and the Isle of Sheppey – can be combined with similar products in near neighbouring districts to create a seamless or ‘joined up’ approach to promoting packages aimed at attracting a range of visitors – business, day, short break and long stay visitors. Undoubtedly Swale has moved quickly to take advantage of new opportunities and has brought not only added value to marketing and promotional activities but much needed external funding to project implementation as well as raising the profile at a more strategic level of operation as demonstrated in the development of the (North) Kent Regional Park.
Best Value Assessment
Assuming existing resources are retained, current working practice does not offer ‘best value’ – enquiries detract from Development and Partnership work, which meets strategic objectives and offers the most value added
13 Baseline statements available 14 Refer to footnote 1
102 Maintain Swale-wide working to retain critical mass to achieve/offer benefits to local tourism businesses through the wider range of partnership with near ‘neighbour’ authorities to ensure value added and profile raising within the context of more strategic projects.
Partnership working is fully exploited in terms of internal resources and the obvious restrictions placed upon the service and its development; in effect there is little opportunity for further capacity building on existing resources (i.e. one person/restrictions i.e. Executive’s reluctance to consider joining membership organisation – combined offices of regional tourist board and Kent Tourism – and paying for core organisational services in addition to project costs.
IT/innovation has been embraced to assist situation – however, adoption of enquiries by CSC would help problem above, however there is an associated physical administration requirement both as back office support to the CSC work (sending out hardcopy info) and general service support which the latter does not have the capacity to do.
New opportunities and new markets – a range of essentially rural initiatives (e.g. eco-tourism project, Isle of Sheppey) are being investigated and encouraged through the development of more strategic projects, which have the potential to attract national/regional funding.
There is significant training input to local schools/colleges with students given work experience within the tourism service. A new ‘Ambassador’ scheme is being piloted by the local Further Education College in Sittingbourne in conjunction with the TDO using the civic office and the delivery of charity functions as the training opportunity to deliver customer care models. The scheme will be reviewed at the end of the academic year in July 2005.
Key Measures of Success/Performance Targets
Local indicators (service plan) – good progress & maintenance on quality issues relating to accommodation sector in particular. Swale BC was the first to adopt a graded only policy for its accommodation sector in l997 and this has since been followed by all Districts and the County Council in all marketing work. Swale BC is one of only three Districts in Kent (Canterbury and Dover) who have a development function within the tourism service. Only Ashford BC has achieved 100% grading of all its accommodation stock but all Districts are making significant progress in encouraging take-up of quality standards. However, few Districts monitor and record progress in terms of quality grading so it is difficult to benchmark the Borough’s position in this respect. Progress In Swale has been aided in this respect through the advisory service and the establishing of new businesses within the area as they are keen to commence trading with good quality credentials for marketing purposes.
External funding achieved through new partnerships already outlined continues to deliver project work in Swale and in all cases adds values to the existing portfolio of necessarily limited projects delivered by the TDO.
Major Issues
Single working – allowing more productive use of experienced staff resource in delivery of strategic work.
Quality of accommodation product – maintenance of standards in face of large numbers of B&B operators retiring and the reluctance of the camping and caravan sector to address quality issues in the face of a reducing market particularly on the Isle of Sheppey. The TDO has been proactive through the eco-tourism project to identify new markets and opportunities for partnership working with this sector in particular as the project develops and fulfils its potential in terms of attracting new markets to the Island for new activities linked to the unique marshland habitats. Local operators will be engaged in the forthcoming branding workshop, which will introduce the new market potential of the project.
The Executive need to set priorities and assert commitment or otherwise to the tourism service.
103 Recommendations
Strategic approach is being focussed upon but could be improved by the removal of the majority of enquiries to the CSC and a part time administration resource being investigated.
Maintain Borough-wide tourism policy – promoting constituent and diverse areas – Faversham, Isle of Sheppey, Sittingbourne; retain commitment for the Swale Tourism Association, which is increasingly a fundamental part of the wider partnership working and attracting external funds for project delivery.
Revision of ED Strategy to affirm tourism role – locking in new development work with strategic objectives and other strategies– e.g. Cultural Strategy/Community Plan/Thames Gateway - Green Grid Strategy.
104 Community Regeneration Best Value - Action Plan
Target Budgetary Timescale Responsible Officer Outcome Progress to Date Implication General – Objective to support …Festivals Events Culture & Arts ……………………………………………………………… Investigate potential alternative Nil Report by Sept Jan West Self funding/ headline Event/venue to Mt 2005 commercial event Ephraim concert - with wider appeal to the community
Seek additional Maintain existing Report by Sept Jan West Maintain quality of sponsorship/consider budgets 2005 events alternatives to street events supplementing increase costs with external funds/sponsorship Arts Development – Officer Seek external funds 2005/06 Peter Speakman /Jan Officer resource Bid to Arts Council re Art capacity West for promoting Arts Development post for in Regeneration Queenborough Rushenden Successful Mar 2005 – 3 3yr contract starting summer 2005 General – Objective to support …Museums ……………………………………………………………… Re-designate Museums as Nil July 2005 Peter Speakman/ Jan Remove liability to Report to MT Local Heritage Centres West report BVPI Seek other local organisations Unknown - transfer 2005/06 Peter Speakman/ Jan Reduce Seek initial meeting with to operate buildings to facilitate or sale of asset West maintenance Queenborough TC Heritage centres liability while still regarding wildfire retaining heritage museum facility General – Objective to support …District Offices ……………………………………………………………… Further investigate potential Transfer or sale of 2005/06 Peter Speakman Maintain access to Progress interest from transfer/sale of District Offices asset - possible key local services Faversham TC while retaining access to key capital receipt – at reduced costs services revenue costs of Further investigate continuing services Sheerness regeneration
105 - marginal change potential Target Budgetary Timescale Responsible Officer Outcome Progress to Date Implication General – Objective to support … Community Halls – Alexander Centre ………. Further investigate potential Hall subsidy 2005/06 Peter Speakman Outsource Progress interest from transfer/sale of Halls as part currently £89k per Alexander Centre Faversham TC of Alexander Centre annum to be Halls facilities maintained?
Resolve future use of Costs dependant 2005/06 Peter Speakman Decide DDA access assessment Batterbee room (subject to on Disabled access appropriate use of required above) solution room
Objective to support … Community Development to help residents become more active ………. To support residents SEEDA Funded Initially till Dec Steve Vartoukian / Sustainable CD Officer appointed engagement in the Community 05 Austin Clays Development Queenborough Regeneration Development related to PFR underway Officer Post + community needs Planning Delivery and aspirations ‘Arts at Centre’ Bid Grant for PFR successful Support Amicus in Housing Corp Feb 2005 to Dec Steve Vartoukian CD Worker related Post being advertised Neighbourhood Based funded 2007 (linked to Project to cohesion in Community Work Management at East Hall Farm, CHART Partnership) Murston.
Support the development of SBC funded Ongoing Kirsty Gaunt Greater Youth Forum established Swale Youth Forum involvement of Young People in Annual Conference community issues March 05
Youth Survey March 05 Support PCT in delivery of Via SBC Asst CDO ongoing Kirsty Gaunt Reduction in levels Survey of residents Obesity Strategy of diabetes / underway increased health in Sheppey
106 Target Budgetary Timescale Responsible Officer Outcome Progress to Date Implication General – Objective to support to help local groups develop / be more effective ………. To support the Development of SBC Grant Aid ongoing Steve Vartoukian Development of Grant Aid and SLA’s CVS as infrastructure / (SLA) and Swale capacity building developed development support org for Forward SLA services for vol voluntary groups orgs COMPACT process led by CVS
CE Hubs Project (led by CVS) Support Neighbourhood Based Childrens Fund, Ongoing Kirsty Gaunt Project Assisting development of Projects SBC Funding etc Development Milton (Childrens) Project Support in Milton & Sheppey Youth Funding Secured for Action Sheppey Youth Action Support Development of Milton KCC Sure Start Ongoing Steve Vartoukian / Childrens Service Project Team established (Inter Agency) Childrens Funding Kirsty Gaunt in Milton Centre Funding secured Support Community Projects in Limited Funding Ongoing Peter Speakman; Sustainable Development of joint Doddington, Conyer & North Steve Vartoukian; projects working with KCC Early Preston Kirsty Gaunt Years Service and KCC Youth Services
Co-ordinate and deliver Limited Funding / Ongoing Steve Vartoukian / Investment in key Funding secured for CAB GRANT AID services (inc SBC Budgets Kirsty Gaunt voluntary / & CVS QFT) community sector services and BV Review of Grants projects
107
Target Budgetary Timescale Responsible Officer Outcome Progress to Date Implication General – Objective to support. Work with network of groups and organisations, to help them co-operate and gain collective strength .. To support the Development of SBC Grant Aid ongoing Kirsty Gaunt / Steve Development of Partners in the Voluntary Sector Forum (CVS) (SLA) and Swale Vartoukian networking Community Days Forward SLA Annually
COMPACT process led by CVS Support the Holiday Youth Childrens Fund, Ongoing Steve Vartoukian Single Joined-Up Network established Diversion Network (CDRP) SBC, DAT, Amicus Holiday Schemes etc Programme for Funding Achieved for Swale Co-Ordinator (under Kent Safe Schools) Support to Faversham Ongoing Kirsty Gaunt Additional Forward and Faversham community Community Learning Forum projects in Faversham Deliver the Advice Agencies Ongoing Steve Vartoukian Development of Liaison Group set up Liaison Meeting better advice services through co-operation General – Objective to support. Work with public authorities, professional agencies and the business sector, to help them understand the dynamics of community life, to broker their support and help them deliver their own services in ways which better meet the needs of communities . To support the Development of Limited funding Ongoing Steve Vartoukian / Development of LSP Board established SWALE LSP Peter Speakman strategic Community Plan being partnership updated Promote Co-ordinator Post for £40k+ As soon as working – Website initiated LSP /Community Plan resources allow maximised by JD written – future report dedicated officer to Exec
108
Target Budgetary Timescale Responsible Officer Outcome Progress to Date Implication Support to the development of ODPM Funding / Ongoing Steve Vartoukian Investment-led Funding Achieved for CE SWALE FORWARD Planning Delivery Growth and Hubs Project and post Grant Regeneration of Swale Funding Secured for Queenborough CD post and PFR
Input in Developing Regen Strategy
Secured SF SLA with CVS Support the development of Joint Ongoing Steve Vartoukian/ Improved services Youth Strategy Group set SWALE YOUTH STRATEGY Kirsty Gaunt for young people up (11-18) Youth & Youth Services Survey underway
Seek funding for Youth Strategy & Youth Forum post
Support the Development of Joint & PSA Ongoing Steve Vartoukian Development of Consortia Established. Swale Childrens Consortia better services Preventative Strategy through co- produced operation Support the Development of Joint / Limited Ongoing Steve Vartoukian / Development of COMPACT launched SWALE COMPACT Funding Kirsty Gaunt better services through co- Codes of Practice being operation developed
109
Target Budgetary Timescale Responsible Officer Outcome Progress to Date Implication Support the Development of Joint Ongoing Steve Vartoukian / Development of Draft LAA in production the LAA Peter Jolley better services through co- operation Develop Neighbourhood Limited funding Steve Vartoukian Strategic Developing discussion in Renewal Strategy commitment to the LSP & SF Regen Strat most disadvantaged wards Represent SWALE at Strategic Ongoing Steve Vartoukian Development of North Kent Community Fora better services Legal Services through co- Partnership ordination North Kent Gateway Partnership
GOSE LSP Forum
Kent Childrens Strategy Exec Develop / Produce CD Steve Vartoukian Development of BV Review Strategy better services through co- operation and co- ordination General – Objective to support …. External Funding Maintain Strategic priorities in Nil 2005/06 Mike Browning Post enquiry / assistance associated advice information on Website Close Liaison with proposed Nil ongoing Mike Browning Increase proactive corporate Grant Administration assistance to customers
110 Target Budgetary Timescale Responsible Officer Outcome Progress to Date Implication Review homeworking trial Nil April 05 Peter Speakman Compare Initial Survey April 2004 performance and 2nd survey forms received customer April 05 satisfaction General – Objective to support …. Sure Start Manage completion of Contractor to incur Target date April Peter Speakman Completion of Contractor behind Childrens’ & Family centre penalty fees? 05 construction schedule – now due to complete May potential transfer of Possible 2005/06 Peter Speakman Assist in staff accountable status redundancy cost if /administrative staff not transferred transfer as to KCC requried General – Objective to support …. Economic Development Review Economic Sept 2005 Kieren Mansfield Revised 5 yr Development Strategy Strategy Establish on-going 2005/06 Kieren Mansfield Establishment of consultation mechanism with Economic Forum Business Community Up –grade website content nil Sept 2005 Jill Read Comply to Searchable property ‘working with information available Business’ from Nov 2004 standards Develop Single Business Unknown poss IEG 2005/06 Kieren Mansfield/ Jill National target for Account Enquiry/access funds Read SBA to be system introduced in April 2006 Grant Advisory service Potential saving of Other DCs /BLK Kieren Mansfield Decision re on- - future funding £9,000 p.a.- & part to meet by June going support time post 05 General – Objective to support …. Tourism Revise Tourism Strategy Sept 2005 Lyn Newton Revised 5 year Strategy Investigate alternative Enquiry unknown Sept 2005 Lyn Newton / Peter Establish internal handling Jolley resource
111
112