Agenda item

The Portfolio Holder for Social Inclusion and Community Cohesion, Rosie Kirk:

a)    presented her report regarding activity and achievements within her portfolio and covered the following main areas:-

·         Neighbourhood Working

·         Community Cohesion

·         Social Inclusion

·         Adult Learning

·         Safeguarding Children and Adults at Risk

·         Domestic Abuse

·         Older People

·         Community Centres

·         Young People

·         Asylum Seekers and Refugees

Members made comments to the Portfolio Holder for Social Inclusion and Community Cohesion on various aspects of her report in relation to:

Question: What was the Council doing to help young people between 16 and 24 years?

Response: There was a Child Friendly City event at Lincoln University which would help promote the rights of young people and make Lincoln a more child friendly city. Officers were also working with the Network to help enhance the skills of young people.

Question: Who looked after young people under the age of 13?

Response: Social Services would take responsibility if an incident occurred, it wouldn’t be the Portfolio Holder’s responsibility.

Question: What was the cost of the Poverty Conference and who funded it?

Response: The Poverty Conference cost around £2,000 and the Corporate Policy Team funded it.

Question: How had the situation improved in regards to Poverty?

Portfolio Holder response: Following the demise of LCAS (Lincoln Community Assistance Scheme), a number of organisations are discussing a longer term sustainable plan for food vouchers.

Question: In regards to Sincil Bank, how would its performance be defined as a success?

Portfolio Holder response: The improvement of the area and wellbeing of the people in the community.

Officer response: The new Assistant Director for Housing would be taking over that particular area of work and would devise some indicators for Neighbourhood Working.

Question: The key message from Neighbourhood Working was to organise then pull out and a withdrawal strategy hadn’t been put together. How would it be built into the service?

Portfolio Holder response: Improvement of the area and wellbeing of the community.

Question: How many applications were received?

Portfolio Holder response: 170 applications were received however there was some uncertainty about how many were accepted.

Question: How was it different to the Credit Union?

Officer response: Lincoln money tended to be in relation to clients who struggled to obtain a loan elsewhere and/or required such a payment quickly (e.g. same day decision).

Question: The usage of Community Centres had gone down by 1,000 in this quarter. Which community centres were the least used?

Portfolio Holder response: Over the summer period there was a reduction in activities which led to the drop in figures.

Question: Had the Council priced itself out of the market? The small community centres seemed to be more successful. Was there any possibility of improving Sudbrooke Drive Community Centre?

Officer response: The Council charges were more expensive due to having set fees. There were some Community Centres, Sudbrooke Drive in particular that were in need of refurbishment however there wasn’t any funding to carry out that work at the moment. If there was an opportunity and funding was received, other priorities may take precedent, it would depend on demand at the time.

Question: The over 50’s group at Sudbrooke Drive community centre had complained about the temperature due to the heating not being switched on until the centre had been opened. Could anything be done about this?

Response: There were ways around it however it wouldn’t be feasible to heat the community centre prior to people arriving. If Members wanted to discuss the matter further another meeting could be arranged.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.