Agenda item

Called in by Councillors:

Bob Purser

Wendy Randall

Gareth Eales

Emma Roberts

Janice Duffy

Cathrine Russell

Kyriakoulla Jolley

Keith Holland-Delamere

In accordance with 10.5.5 of the Constitution:

Item 10: UK Levelling up fund Round two

Decision:

RESOLVED: That Cabinet;

a.     Noted the activity made to date, timescales and next steps for the Levelling Up Fund applications.

b.     Delegated Authority to the Executive Director of Place, Economy and Environment in consultation with the Executive Director of Finance and the Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Town Centre Regeneration and Growth and approved the final two bids being made to the LUF round two, subject to any Council funding contribution also being in place before submission.

c.     Recommended to Council Subject that, subject to the business case, and the capital and revenue implications stemming from it, being endorsed by the Chief Finance Officer and the relevant portfolio holders, that it approves the additional £21m.

b)     The Reason:

·       To challenge the process that was deployed in identifying projects that could be included in any submission.

·       To confirm that Ward Councillors are key stakeholders in their wards and to note that Ward Councillors were not included . The accompanying cabinet report stated “the council has engaged with key stakeholders” – elected members and resident / community groups were not among them.

·       We believe there should have at least been a level of pre-scrutiny prior to a Cabinet decision.

The Cabinet decision contravenes clause (d) of the Principles of Decision Making within the WNC constitution which states: “due consultation and proper advice is taken and consideration of alternative options before decisions are reached”

c)     The alternative course of action or recommendation proposed:

      i.          review the process by which recommendations are made to Cabinet so that the process for any phase 3 will be better and more inclusive of Ward member views.

     ii.          Given the purpose of the Levelling Up Fund, we also want to seek recommendations to ensure that left behind areas are not further left behind.

The Chair introduced the Call-In request and explained that upon the advice of the Monitoring Officer, the Call-In request had been through the appropriate channels and it was confirmed that the procedure had been followed. The Chair explained the procedure for the Call-In. The speakers would be invited to address the Committee – Mr Toby Birch, Councillor Wendy Randall and Councillor Sally Beardsworth. The Call-in Originator, Councillor Bob Purser would be invited to expand upon their reasons for concern.

Mr Toby Birch, the Chair of Community Spaces Northamptonshire, addressed the Committee and considered that ward councillors should be involved in the funding process, due to their knowledge of small charities and organisations in their local area. It was suggested that Southfields Community centre should have been considered for funding.

Councillor Wendy Randall addressed the Committee and was disappointed that ward councillors were not consulted, due to their local knowledge. The criteria should have been explained to councillors so that they were aware of the criteria and process.

Councillor Sally Beardsworth addressed the Committee and expressed disappointment with the ‘Levelling Up’ funding which should be utilised to help the underprivileged in areas of deprivation. Southfields Community Centre was desperate for improvements.

The Chair read out a letter received from the VCSE (Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise), which acted as a collective voice for the voluntary community. The organisation felt that there was a lack of transparency with the funding scheme and that a significant funding opportunity had been missed.

At the Chair’s invitation, Councillor Purser, Call-In Originator addressed the Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee and expanded on their reasons for the Call-In. Councillor Purser felt that Cabinet had made fundamental errors by not consulting with ward councillors and that Cabinet had misunderstood the Levelling Up funding criteria. Ward Councillors should have been consulted on the initiative, particularly those in areas of higher need. The Levelling-Up funding appeared to disadvantage the most disadvantaged as many of the projects were from more affluent communities.

Councillor Purser proposed to Cabinet that:

1)    Ward Councillors are consulted early on in the process of a bidding programme

2)    Capacity is developed so that communities have schemes ready to go should funding opportunities arise

3)    Communities should not just be considered as geographical in nature. The needs of other groups that come together should also be considered e.g. ethnic groups, women’s groups

Councillor Purser was keen that lessons were learnt from the most recent funding process and changes made to improve the process for the future.

The Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee heard a comprehensive presentation by the Head of Major Projects and Regeneration, which explained the background to the bidding process and explained the criteria imposed in respect of the decision made.

The Committee then asked questions of the Head of Major Projects and Regeneration and the Executive Director - Place and Economy:

• The criteria imposed was strict and timescales short
• There was no call for project suggestions due to the short timescales involved
• The Southfields Community Centre was considered but the required level of design and costing information was not available at the time
• It was appreciated that improvements to the process needed to be made for future rounds of bidding and there was commitment to do so
• There was an undertaking to be more inclusive of member views and engagement for the next bidding round
• The Executive Director - Place and Economy was aware that the process could have been managed better and lessons would be learnt. The bidding process allowed just 16 weeks for bids to be put forward which required schemes that were already well developed.
• A ‘project pipeline’ would be developed, allowing schemes to be prepared to a level where they would be ready for future funding applications.
• An all member briefing session would be arranged for future rounds of bidding
• Due to the strict timescales involved in the Round 2 bidding process, the outcome would not have changed even if the process had been managed differently. There was a good chance of achieving funding for the identified projects
• It was possible to convert some schemes from revenue to capital funding but the criteria was very strict
• The voluntary sector would be included in the future
• There was agreement that ward members must be consulted in the future but that the current bids remain as they are

Findings and Conclusions

During the deliberation session, Place Overview and Scrutiny Committee concluded that it did not uphold the Call-In but that the Committee would make recommendations to Cabinet requesting changes to the process.

Upon a vote, it was:

RESOLVED that:

a)        The Call-in be rejected on the grounds that the Levelling Up Fund round 2 must be submitted by 6 July 2022.

b)      It is recommended to Cabinet that the process for Round 3 is reviewed to include all ward members and the voluntary sector early in the consultation.