Agenda item

Report of the Director – Development and Economic Growth

The Economic Growth Officer and the Corporate and Commercial Projects Officer presented an update to the Group about the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) and the Rural England Prosperity Fund (REPF).

The Economic Growth Officer confirmed that the funding was announced in September 2022, following which much work had taken place to set out a proposed programme of expenditure going forward.

The Economic Growth Officer noted that UKSPF and REPF replaced existing EU funding and had the goals of building pride in place and increasing life chances across the UK. She explained that the EU funding had supported business support and skills, for both local projects, such as £1.6m for Bingham Chapel Lane Enterprise Centre and wider projects across the D2N2 area, such as the Growth Hub.

The Economic Growth Officer said that UKSPF provided allocated funding for each local authority over three years, rather than through a competitive bidding process for specific projects. She noted that the funding had three overarching investment priorities, being community and place, business support, and people and skills, and had forty one interventions below those priorities, with a range of expected outputs and outcomes for those interventions. She said that funding could be allocated to both capital and revenue initiatives and that local authorities were encouraged to work collaboratively.

In relation to REPF, the Economic Growth Officer explained that this replaced the previous EU LEADER funding and had only been awarded to rural areas, which included Rushcliffe, Bassetlaw and Newark and Sherwood districts within Nottinghamshire. It was capital grant funding only and would commence in April 2023 for two years.

The Economic Growth Officer explained that the Council had identified some Rushcliffe principles for the funding which included ensuring projects supported delivery of the Councils Corporate Plan, that funding supported projects across the Borough, demonstrated value for money and were deliverable. This was particularly important in year one due to the tight timescales. She added that much reporting would be required as part of the programme, demonstrating value for money, added value for projects that otherwise wouldn’t be delivered, and a need for the project.

The Economic Growth Officer said that stakeholder engagement had been done through the Strategic Growth Board as well as with wider stakeholders including through local growth boards and discussions with identified groups.

The Economic Growth Officer confirmed that the high level Investment Plan for UKSPF had been submitted to Government on 31 August 2022 and approval for it had been received in November 2022. The Addendum for the REPF had been submitted in December 2022 for which the Council was awaiting approval.

The Economic Growth Officer outlined a range of projects that had been approved for the first year of funding, including, benches and improvements to the café at Rushcliffe Country Park, energy audits for the Council’s properties, funding to support reed clearance along the canal  to improve  water retention, implementation of a digital support toolkit for high streets, funding to support increased police patrols at Ratcliffe on Soar in relation to car cruising, a feasibility study for a long stay car park at Bingham, bollards at Bingham Market Place, and an accessibility study for Central Avenue in West Bridgford. The total funding package for year one was circa £312k.

The Economic Growth Officer said that a Project Implementation Officer, shared with Broxtowe Borough Council, was being recruited to support delivery of the scheme, which would be funded from the UKSPF funding pot.

The Corporate and Commercial Projects Officer explained that year one REPF funding amounted to £149k. She outlined the Council’s high level proposal to create two grant pots, with one at £80k to support rural business with projects relating to diversification, net zero infrastructure, rural business hubs and the visitor economy, and one at £70k to support rural communities with projects supporting community groups, green spaces, active travel and heritage and cultural activities.

The Corporate and Commercial Projects Officer stated that this could mean that the two funding pots each be split into two grants pots of between £20k to £40k, possibly requiring some varying degrees of match funding. It was expected that the type of projects funded by UKSPF would be similar to those funded by REPF except that REPF projects would have a rural element and are capital only. The details for the grant pots including eligibility criteria are being developed.

In relation to year two funding for UKSPF, the Corporate and Commercial Projects Officer explained that work is being undertaken, led by RBC Officers, to explore opportunities for joint commissioning across Nottinghamshire for business support activity. In addition, she said that other project options included capital spend in the Borough’s town centres, possibly building on feasibility studies in West Bridgford and Bingham, capital grants for neighbourhood infrastructure projects, support for decarbonisation, support for cost of living, improvement to green and blue spaces, focus on heritage assets and projects supporting tourism and inward investment.

The Corporate and Commercial Projects Officer explained that much consultation had been held with rural businesses and communities and with stakeholders such as RCAN, RCVS and Citizens’ Advice. An update had been given at the Town and Parish Forum in October and a further update would be provided at the March Forum. She said that the Strategic Growth Board would act as oversight for the funding and Rushcliffe Business Partnership would be engaged bi-annually. Residents would be updated through Rushcliffe Reports and the Council’s social media and communications channels.

The Chairman asked about the criteria and assessment process for projects. The Economic Growth Officer referred to the priorities as set out in the Investment Plan and explained that there was flexibility within those interventions. The Service Manager Economic Growth and Property added that projects needed to meet the outputs and outcomes specified in the criteria and the process was open to applications and suggestions for a variety of projects.

The Chairman referred to CCTV for fly tipping and the Service Manager Economic Growth and Property confirmed that this was on the long list of projects which had been proposed to be supported in years two/three.

Councillor Butler referred to REPF funding and asked whether there would be scope to fund more than the suggested two schemes if more applications were received. The Corporate and Commercial Projects Officer said that approximately £150k had been allocated for year one and while there wasn’t scope to increase that amount, the split between pots and the number of projects supported was flexible depending on interest. She confirmed that projects involving other local authorities would be possible.

The Service Manager Economic Growth and Property explained that the Council had been required to allocate funding within the investment priorities as part of its Investment Plan, and that they were indicative. The Investment Plan had been agreed by Cabinet and regular updates on projects were provided to the Executive Management Team and the Portfolio Holder. The Service Manager Economic Growth and Property explained that the process was flexible but needed to ensure that there was balance across the investment priorities.

Councillor J Stockwood referred to the priority of pride in place and asked how this would be measured. The Service Manager Economic Growth and Property explained that the Government had set out criteria for outputs against the various interventions and said that the residents survey could be used as part of a pride in place baseline.

Councillor J Stockwood asked whether town and high street projects would encompass areas other than West Bridgford and Bingham and the Economic Growth Officer confirmed that all high streets and neighbourhood centres could be considered for projects.

Councillor J Stockwood suggested contacting the Rural Market Town Group, which was part of the Rural Services Network, as they would have information about market towns and the issues faced by rural communities, including details of projects currently in existence, and also contacting local area groups and forums in unparished areas.

In relation to the funding of the Project Implementation Officer post, the Service Manager Economic Growth and Property confirmed that the total funding that could be used to support management/monitoring costs was circa £104k over the three years which the 4% Government had allowed to fund staffing costs.

In relation to the digital high streets project, the Service Manager Economic Growth and Property explained that the Council was looking to provide support through online guides and webinars and also to have an individual who would visit high streets to offer in-person support, along with one-to-one tailored support with a consultant.

The Service Manager Economic Growth and Property explained that whilst year one funding had been allocated, none of the funding for years two and three had been.

Councillor J Stockwood suggested sharing the objectives document and information around the bidding process to provide reference as to what would and would not be realistic proposals. The Service Manager Economic Growth and Property said that all of the information was available on the Government’s website and the Team would ensure that this documentation was made available.

Councillor Way asked about REPF funding allocation. The Corporate and Commercial Projects Officer explained that the suggested grant pot splits were indicative and had been based on suggestions from partners that these would be the sort of amounts that rural communities would usually bid for, but there was flexibility to offer more grants at smaller amounts.

Councillor Way asked whether the schemes were open for applications and the Service Manager Economic Growth and Property said that the Council was in the process of confirming the criteria and details and it was likely that funding would open late February.

The Chairman noted the importance of the funding and highlighted the need to ensure that the public were made aware of its existence, availability and the investments taking place in their communities.

It was RESOLVED that the Growth and Development Scrutiny Group:

a)    Reviewed proposals for year two and made suggestions for additional priorities and projects to support.

b)    Reviewed the stakeholder engagement plan and identified any additional groups to engage with or ways to engage.