Agenda item

The UK Prosperity Fund Manager presented the Community Investment Fund report. In doing so it was noted that on 25th February 2026, the Council resolved to create a reserve of £1.25 million for a Community Investment Fund to enable agile investments to meet local community needs. In addition to this, an uplift in respect of Members’ Ward Budgets from £2,000 to £5,000 and therefore £93,000 of this reserve was allocated to accommodate this increase.

The process for the allocation of funding for projects would be competitive, and applications evaluated against the assessment criteria in the policy and a scoring matrix based on these criteria applied.  A panel of at least three officers would independently assess each application, followed by a moderation process to review and align scores.  The resulting list of proposed decisions would be reviewed by the Assistant Director Regeneration and Property Services who would make recommendations to the Executive Director Environment and Communities.  The Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategic Partnerships, Economic Development and Enabling and the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Planning and Strategic Housing would then be consulted on the recommended decisions before applicants were informed of the outcome.

The final recommendation contained within the report was in respect of funding for 0.5 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) for a post to administer the funding.

The Leader explained that this report had been pre-scrutinised by the Finance and Budget Working Group at its meeting on 13^th April 2026 where some recommendations were made and ratified at the meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Board at its meeting on 14^th April 2026. The recommendations were as follows:

1)    Regarding Bromsgrove District Departments – any projects put forward must have the approval of the Ward Member.

2)    Bromsgrove District Departments help and assist Ward Members with any projects they may put forward.

3)    That the Panel should be Cross-Party.

4)    If Ward Members feel they cannot sponsor a project, then it cannot go ahead.

5)    Consideration should be given to an appeal process.

These recommendations were discussed in detail. It was stated that applications for this funding must be in line with Council Priorities. In terms of Council departments applying for funding this was not an opportunity for any service area who had not applied for a Budget Bid to apply for funding.  The process of approval was clear within the funding criteria and with an Officer panel evaluating the applications, this would ensure that the funding would be available more quickly and the process less bureaucratic. There had been funding rounds undertaken previously, such as the New Homes Bonus, which had been long and protracted and taken up a considerable amount of Member time and Officer resource. The Leader confirmed that both she and / or the Deputy Leader would remove themselves from considering any projects that might be a conflict of interest for them. This was the advantage of both Members being consulted as part of the application process.

In respect of recommendations 1 and 4 above, it was confirmed that Ward Members would be consulted as part of the application process. Ward Members would need to provide confirmation that they were in support of a project within their Ward. Where a Ward Member was not in support of a project, they would need to provide a clear rationale, as to the reasons why they did not support the project, especially where it related to a Council priority. This would be taken into account as part of the evaluation process. It was agreed that it was the responsibility of the applicant to provide further details to the Ward Member if they were not initially supportive of the project. Alternative wording was proposed for recommendation 1 as detailed below:

‘Any project proposal that had potential implications for a ward must include feedback from the Ward Member and be provided for consideration by the Executive Director Environment and Communities following consultation with the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategic Partnerships, Economic Development and Enabling, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Planning and Strategic Housing and Assistant Director Regeneration and Property.’

The Chairman of the Board expressed that he required more surety around the proposed wording and requested that the word ‘feedback’ be replaced with ‘confirmation. This request was accepted.

There was a discussion regarding recommendation 2 above regarding support from Bromsgrove District departments. Members were informed that technical support via initially the Assistant Director would be made available to advise as appropriate whilst recognising council officers would not be leading on bids from communities. An amendment to the wording was suggested as follows:

‘Support Ward Members to fulfil their community leadership role in working with the communities by accessing any appropriate technical support via Assistant Directors in the first instance, whilst ensuring bids were owned and developed by Ward Members and their communities.’

The Chairman of the Board accepted this amendment.

The recommendation regarding a cross-party panel was noted.  It was confirmed that it was not intended to create a Member panel or committee at this time for determination of Community Investment Funding.

Whilst an appeal process was not supported at this time, a rationale would be provided by the Executive Director for Environment and Communities for any decisions made regarding bids, following consultation with the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategic Partnerships, Economic Development and Enabling and the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Planning and Strategic Housing in liaison with the Assistant Director for Regeneration and Property Services.

Members queried the 0.5 FTE allocation to the administering of the fund. The Overview and Scrutiny Board had understood that this would be divided between Bromsgrove and Redditch Councils resulting in 0.25 FTE for each Council. It was clarified that the post would be 0.5 FTE at each Council and not 0.25 FTE. The Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Board was pleased that this was the case. 

As there were three rounds of funding available, Members felt it was prudent to undertake the first round of funding, which was due to start imminently. It was determined that following the first round, which would be monitored closely, a review of the process took place to accommodate any lessons learnt and make any amendments to the process if necessary. It was reiterated that this process involved ownership by the Ward Member and communities and it was not for the Council to undertake all the work.

RESOLVED that

1)    The Community Investment Fund policy be approved;

2)    Recommendations in relation to the Community Investment Fund to be received from the Assistant Director Regeneration and Property with delegated authority for spend, upon receipt of those recommendations, to be granted to the Executive Director Environment and Communities following consultation with the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategic Partnerships, Economic Development and Enabling and the Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Planning and Strategic Housing;

3)    £93,000 of the Community Investment Fund be allocated to Members’ Ward Budgets;

4)    Up to £43,792 of the Community Investment Fund be allocated to the cost of administering the fund;

5)    Any project proposal that had potential implications for a ward must include confirmation from the Ward Member and be provided for consideration by the Executive Director Environment and Communities following consultation with the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategic Partnerships, Economic Development and Enabling, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Planning and Strategic Housing and Assistant Director Regeneration and Property;

6)    Ward Members were supported to fulfil their community leadership role in working with the communities by accessing any appropriate technical support via Assistant Directors in the first instance, whilst ensuring bids were owned and developed by Ward Members and their communities;

7)    Where a project does not receive the support of a Ward Member this would be taken into account as part of the evaluation process;

8)    A rationale would be provided by the Executive Director Environment and Communities for any decisions regarding bids, following consultation with the Leader and Cabinet Member for Strategic Partnerships, Economic Development and Enabling, Deputy Leader and Cabinet Member for Planning and Strategic Housing in liaison with the Assistant Director Regeneration and Property; and

9)    A review of the process of the Community Investment Fund be undertaken following the completion of the first round of funding.