Agenda item - UK Shared Prosperity Fund - Update - Report to follow

Agenda item

UK Shared Prosperity Fund - Update - Report to follow

This report will be published in a Supplementary Papers pack.

 

Minutes:

The Board was informed that Bromsgrove had been allocated a total of £2,805,712 in the UK Shared Prosperity Fund by the Government. It would be available for a three-year period, from 2022/23 to 2024/25.  The level of funding available in each year was due to increase from £340,499 in 2022/23 to £1.784 million in 2024/25. The Government had identified three investment priorities of Community and Place, Supporting Local Business, and People and Skills, which needed to be addressed through the expenditure of the funding. The funding allocated to year three of the programme was particularly high because this would be the only year in which funding would be available for the People and Skills priority.

 

The Investment Plan that had been submitted to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) included 23 interventions, which were broad areas of investment where the fund would be spent. These interventions were spread across the three investment priorities. It was highlighted that the Council was not required to include details of any specific projects in the Investment Plan. The Government had provided an indicative date for issuing approvals for the Investment Plan of October 2022 onwards. Once approved, the Council was required to spend the funding on those interventions that were submitted in the Investment Plan.

 

In anticipation of approval of the Investment Plan, the focus was on delivery of the fund. Given that the initial call for projects had been open for a limited time only, a second call for projects had been established for organisations to submit specific project proposals until 14 November 2022.

 

In response to queries from Members, consideration was given to the local governance arrangements for managing the UK Shared Prosperity Fund. It was explained that the Bromsgrove Partnership oversaw the development of the Investment Plan and would oversee project selection in its capacity as the local partnership group for the fund. The Bromsgrove Levelling Up Programme Board was composed of several Cabinet Portfolio Holder members (including the Leader of the Council), a representative from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), Council Officers and officers from partner organisations such as the County Council, the Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership (WLEP) and North Worcestershire Economic Development and Regeneration (NWEDP). Other partners such as the local primary care network, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), and the Bromsgrove District Housing Trust (BDHT) would also be involved in the local partnership group in addition to a large range of stakeholders (via a stakeholders’ forum) including resident and business community representatives.

 

It was further explained that once the second call for projects had closed, all submissions would be assessed by a sub-committee of the Bromsgrove Partnership Board against strategic fit, deliverability, and value for money criteria. The Sub-Committee of the Partnership Board would then make recommendations to the main Board regarding which projects should be selected.

 

In assessing each submission, the project would be assigned against one of the three investment priorities and assessed against other projects assigned to that same investment priority. In Bromsgrove, Officers were suggesting that 40 per cent of the funding should be allocated to Communities and Place and 30 per cent allocated each to Supporting Local Business, and People and Skills investment priorities respectively. The Government had clarified that there would be flexibility to vary these allocations by up to 30 per cent, if, for instance, not enough projects were submitted that addressed one of the investment priorities.

 

Some Members expressed disappointment that most elected members had not been involved or consulted in deciding investment priorities and, it appeared, would not be expected to be involved in the Bromsgrove Partnership Board. In response, it was explained that the Government intended for projects to be driven by communities at large rather than elected members, hence there was a wide partnership board based on representatives from among each stakeholder group.

 

Members requested that further detail be provided with respect of the decision-making arrangements for allocating the fund in Bromsgrove.

 

Some Members commented that there was a need for public scrutiny of decisions made by the Bromsgrove Partnership Board and in view of this requested that copies of the minutes of the Bromsgrove Partnership Board Sub-Committee responsible for making project allocation and funding decisions be made available for inspection by councillors and the public.

 

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

 

Supporting documents: