LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP – EXECUTIVE BOARD
Minutes
DATE
23 May 2006
VENUE
Council Chamber, Guildhall
PRESENT
Board Members:
In Attendance:
Secretariat:
David Atkinson, Chief Executive - City of York Council
Brian Cantor, Vice Chancellor - University of York
Ron Cooke – Co-opted Partner
Len Cruddas, Chief Executive – Chamber of Commerce
Mike Galloway, Principal – York College
Cllr. Stephen Galloway – City of York Council (Chair)
Pat Hill, - PCT Patient Forum
Rachel Johns – Director of Public Health - SYPCT
Iain Spittal, Chief Superintendent – North Yorkshire Police
Cllr. David Merrett – City of York Council
Colin Stroud, Chief Executive – York Council for Vol. Service
Jonathan Tyler, Chair – York Environment Forum
Cllr. Andrew Waller – City of York Council
Nigel Burchell, Senior Policy Development Officer - CYC
Bill Woolley, Director of City Strategy,
Sian Hunter, Policy Development Officer - CYC
Colin Mockler, Head of Performance Improvement, CYC
Denise Simms, Senior Partnership Support Officer, CYC
APOLOGIES:
Ken Dixon – Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Keith Jones - Dean of York
Bob Wood, Chair – Safer York Partnership
1
WELCOME AND APOLOGIES
Apologies were received from Ken Dixon, Keith Jones and Bob Wood. In addition, Chief
Superintendent Iain Spittal was welcomed to the Partnership Board as the new Area
Commander, replacing Tim Madgwick.
2
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 30 MARCH 2006
Minutes of the meeting held on 30 March were agreed, with the exception of clarification
regarding:

Regional Spatial Strategy: Cllr. Merrett commented that at the end of the
discussion on the Regional Spatial Strategy Dave Caulfield had spoken of
investigating solutions outside the planning system to meet housing need. Dave
Merrett asked whether a report on this was forthcoming and was informed that
progress on it would be checked.

Safer and Stronger Communities: Colin Stroud commented that the last bullet
point regarding record keeping within the voluntary and community sector
concerned a database that was being developed for the sub-region, which would
assist in contributing to SSCF targets.
MATTERS ARISING
Sub-Regional Investment Plan (SRIP) Review 2006 – Partners were informed that there
would be a discussion regarding progress with the SRIP Review at the York & North
Yorkshire Partnership Executive on 24 May. There were also plans for a longer debate on
the review at the Economic Development Board on 20 June.
LDF Core Strategy Consultation Plan – Partners were informed that consultation on the Core
Strategy Issues and Options was due to commence late May / early June. Copies of the
document would be sent to a range of interested parties including statutory bodies, local
interest groups and each of the LSP sub-partnership boards. In addition to several public
presentations to a range of interested groups, thematic workshops would be arranged based
on the following spatial planning objectives:
- Workshop 1: Sustainable Location, Design and Construction
- Workshop 2: Economic Wellbeing through Sustainable Economic Growth
- Workshop 3: Community Development Needs
- Workshop 4: A Quality Environment
- Workshop 5: Sustainable Forms of Transport
Responses collected throughout the consultation period would be used to produce a further
document, ‘Towards Preferred Options’, for further consultation in late Autumn 2006.
3
LSP STRUCTURAL REVIEW
Board Members were presented with an outline of proposals to restructure Without Walls.
Partners were informed that a restructure of the Partnership was necessary as a result of the
expectations being placed on LSPs by government and requirements to develop a Local Area
Agreement. The report presented the type of roles and responsibilities that would be required
for consideration and suggested alignment of the Partnership structure with LAA delivery
requirements.
Board members’ comments on the restructure proposals included the following:
 Science City York should be explicitly identified in the new structure;
 Cross cutting themes should be brought out and proactively managed for example
by a reference group reporting to the Partnership Forum;
 There should be more recognition of the essential role of the economy in the
partnership structure;
 The ‘stronger’ element of Safer and Stronger Communities should not be lost
within delivery of this block of the LAA – it was suggested that these two strands
be split, or if not, to ensure that the Stronger Communities work was well
resourced;
 There was no hierarchy of importance within the structure diagram at paragraph
11 in the report; all partnerships had equal right of input;
 It was important to ensure that all themes were represented on the Executive
Board;














It would be helpful to get a sense of the relationship between theme partnerships;
There was a need to ensure that adult lifelong learning and higher education were
picked up within the partnership structure and LAA delivery mechanisms;
Concern was expressed about the suggestion to establish an Environment Board,
which would engage all organisations with environmental responsibilities, as there
would have to be a strong commitment to make such a group work;
The LSP Executive Board needed to be aligned with the Council’s Executive
structure in order to ensure that there was more political representation in the
process;
There was a need for more clarity on what the Partnership Forum would do;
The LA21 Steering Group was to disband, since it’s remit overlapped with the
work of other delivery partnerships. The new Environment Partnership would
replicate the Healthy City Board model and would take on responsibility for
delivery of the environment theme;
The four LAA delivery block partnerships were not specifically set up to deliver on
LAAs, therefore, their current structures may need to changed in order to fit with
the new requirement;
There was concern that in delivering LAA priorities, Boards might lose focus on
their wider remit to deliver the Community Strategy;
The Forum would have no executive responsibility but would have a strategic role
in continually refreshing the vision of the Partnership;
There was a need to have a political chair of the Executive Board, since it would
be responsible for delivery, but not necessarily of the Partnership Forum;
Executive Board Members would also be represented on the Partnership Forum;
The Forum should have a broad membership and include representatives of
‘Friends of..’ groups and resident / community organisations;
The voluntary sector should be represented on the Executive Board;
A member of the business community should represent Thriving City on the
Executive Board.
Action – it was agreed that:
1. Further consideration would be given to the selection process for members
of the Partnership Forum, Partners were also asked to suggest Forum
members;
2. Representatives on the Executive Board from the voluntary and business
sectors would be considered;
3. Since the Executive Board was not due to meet again before September,
all documentation regarding structural development would be circulated to
Partners for comment by e-mail. This would be essential to ensure there
was a mechanism to approve the first draft of the LAA.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAA:
4
5
6
7
MANDATORY OUTCOMES AND STRETCH TARGETS
LONGLIST OF PRIORITY THEMES
COMMUNICATION STRATEGY AND VCS STATEMENT OF INVOLVEMENT
PROJECT TIMETABLE
Partners were presented with a report that set out what had to be included in the agreement
in respect of mandatory and LPSA stretch targets. The report also contained a list of issues
as a starting point for discussion about York’s additional LAA priorities and a draft
communication strategy. Nigel Burchell, Senior Policy Development Officer, was introduced
to Partners as he had recently taken the lead on development of the LAA.
Board Members’ comments on LAA development included:










There was a need to specify how the general public could be involved in LAA
development and delivery;
Those developing the LAA should be wary of ‘over-consultation’ and should
ensure that information from previous consultations was fed into the process;
Young people had an important part to play in this process, existing mechanisms
should be exploited to make sure their voices are heard;
Consultation on development of the LAA should be balanced with the forthcoming
review of the Community Strategy planned for Summer 2007;
The York Compact was an agreement between VCS and public providers on
issues such as funding, consultation etc;
Although York had one of the highest levels of NEET in the sub-region, in terms of
the national perspective, York’s figure was low;
The recent discussion at Economic Development Board could help to inform
Economic Development LAA priorities;
Acknowledging that the LAA had mandatory issues and indicators to address and
measure, it would be helpful for the LAA to also focus on local priorities and
perhaps tackle issues of environmental sustainability;
Allocation of LPSA Performance Reward Grant should be clarified;
It was important to have a baseline for all indicators measured through the LAA.
Action – it was agreed that:
1. York Compact would be followed for consultation with the voluntary and
community sector in development and delivery of the LAA;
2. Information on how LPSA rewards would be allocated would be circulated
to Partners for information.
8
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
None
There being no other business, the meeting ended at 17.45pm
Date of next meetings (to take place 4-6pm in Committee Room 2 at the Guildhall):
Partnership Board Meetings:
28 Sept 2006
29 Nov 2006
22 Mar 2007
Strategic Monitoring Group Meetings:
18 July 2006
24 Jan 2007