Agenda item

Cllr Dr Nathan Ley, Cabinet Member for Public Health, Inequalities and Community Safety, Robin Rogers, Programme Director (Partnerships and Delivery), and Emily Urquhart, Policy Officer, have invited to present a report on the Council’s approach to Community Wealth Building and Wider Social Value outside the statutory processes relating to procurement.

 

The Committee is asked to consider the report, raise any questions, and to AGREE any recommendations it wishes to make to Cabinet arising therefrom.

 

Cllr Dr Nathan Ley, Cabinet Member for Public Health, Inequalities and Community Safety, Robin Rogers, Programme Director (Partnerships and Delivery), and Emily Urquhart, Policy Officer, were invited to present a report on the Council’s approach to Community Wealth Building and Wider Social Value outside the statutory processes relating to procurement.

 

Cllr Dan Levy, Cabinet Member for Finance, Lorna Baxter, Executive Director Resources and Section 151 Officer, and Ansaf Azhar, Director of Public Health and Communities, were also present to help answer any questions.

 

The Cabinet Member for Finance introduced the report and explained the concept and principles of community wealth building, which aims to reshape the economic system to benefit local communities and address inequalities and environmental challenges.

 

The Cabinet Member of Finance highlighted some of the achievements and benefits of implementing community wealth building approaches, such as the social value policy, the support for small businesses and social enterprises, and a recent collaboration with the Centre for Local Economic Strategies (CLES). The collaboration with the CLES developed a set of recommendations on a number of areas, such as economic development, employment and skills, and social economy.

 

The Cabinet Member also presented the draft social value definition statement, which outlines the Council's ambitions to integrate social value across its activities and consider the social, economic, and environmental impacts of its decisions.

 

Cllr Pressel joined the Committee meeting following the presentation.

 

The Committee welcomed the report and expressed support for the community wealth building approach. They made the following observations and raised a number of questions and comments, such as:

 

·       How to ensure that the approach is not Oxford-centric and that it addresses the needs and opportunities of different areas and communities in the county. There was a desire for more granular information in relation to the geography of the county within the report.

 

The Cabinet Member assured the Committee that one of the main objectives of the report was to target the deprived areas of the county. There was a focus on employment, skills, and education. Additionally, the anchor institutions, within the county such as the NHS, would play a key role in this.

 

There was also an emphasis on the importance of getting communities and locality groups more involved. The Committee welcomed the idea of locality groups being part of the drafting process for plans in their communities.

 

·       The members talked about ways to collaborate with different groups like local government, universities, businesses, and community groups to promote projects that increase wealth in the community.

 

The Programme Director described how the report helped set out a formal approach to bring together what had been a fragmented offering. The Council, along with the Local Enterprise Partnership and other partners, would work together to reach out to those in the community less likely to find the support they needed.

 

·       The Committee explored ways to refine the Community Asset Transfer policy for greater consistency, clarity, and conformity with community wealth building values, while addressing the associated difficulties and necessary compromises.

 

The Cabinet Member for Finance informed the Committee that while the Council was looking to sell or dispose of several properties there were conflicting priorities, including best financial value and best social value, which made the process difficult.

 

The Executive Director described plans, through the corporate landlord approach, to determine the true cost of these properties. This would allow the Council to make more informed decisions on the best outcome for each property.

 

Members stressed the need to address issues preventing unused Council properties from being utilised for community benefit. The longer it takes to determine the properties' best use, the more negative the perception among community members eager to repurpose these assets. Additionally, there were concerns that Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972, which dictates how best value should be obtained, might be outdated and impeding progress.

 

·       Methods for evaluating the results and effects of community wealth building, considering not just economic factors but also social, health, and well-being aspects, and the process of harmonising these with current metrics and strategies.

 

The Director of Public Health and Communities explained to the Committee that the long-term Health and Well-Being Strategy would aid in assessing the effects shown in the community wealth building report, which covers adding a health impact evaluation unit to improve assessments on community health and well-being.

 

Cllr Simpson left the Committee meeting and did not return.

 

The Committee AGREED to make the following recommendations to Cabinet:

 

·       Work with the Local Government Association to open discussion with the government to clarify s.123 of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

·       Provide draft documentation of the CAT policy to Locality Groups.

 

The Committee requested the following ACTION:

 

·       Provide a list of the buildings that are in the hands of the community groups in one legal form or another.