Decision details

The Chair welcomed Members, Officers and the Leader, Councillor Jason McLellan to the meeting. Members were provided with background information and reasoning for the call in request.

 

Members were reminded of the reasons for the call in as stated in the report:

 

“An allocation of £25.6 million had been made to Denbighshire through the UK Prosperity Fund. An open and transparent process must be adhered to for the allocation of those funds”.

 

“Lack of understanding of the application process and shortlisting process. There was no evidence of a scoring matrix and was described as and art not a science. No sufficient evidence on how projects had been awarded and approved. A lack of evidence aligning the process with the UK Government guidelines. No evidence of a right of appeal for applicants or extra information gathering to support the applications. Lack of consultation with all Members throughout the process”.

 

The Scrutiny Co- ordinator provided Members with a detailed description of the call in procedure.

 

The Chair allowed all signatories present at the meeting to put forward their reasoning for calling in the Cabinet decision.

 

Signatories explained to the Committee that the reason for the Call In was to fully understand the process for applying, shortlisting and awarding the Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) monies, it was not to hold up the process in any way. They highlighted their disappointment in the lack of communication that Members had received regarding the process and therefore this had led to minimal opportunities for Members to contribute.

 

The Signatories expressed their concerns over the matrix and scoring system and stated that clarity on this would be beneficial. They stated that Members felt isolated from the process and were of the view that many opportunities throughout the process to gain Member involvement had been missed. The discussions continued by signatories questioning the deliverability of the projects that had moved to the next stage of the SPF process.

 

Signatories continued to stress that they were disappointed by the lack of transparency of the process and the lack of communication with Members. They had signed the call-in request because they felt unsure how to answer potential questions from residents in and applicants in their wards due to the lack of information available to them.

 

Responding to the points raised by the signatories the Leader stated that he understood the motivations of the signatories in that members should be able to answer questions from residents and applicants within their wards with confidence.

 

The Leader continued by explaining that the process adhered to the UK Government guidelines which had previously been set out. The timescales given for the SPF were tight and the Group Leaders and the Chairs of all Member Area Groups (MAGs) were written to and asked to circulate the relevant information to Members (copy of the latter e-mail, dated 15 February 2023, had been included at Annex C to the report). 48 organisations were contacted to be involved with the SPF with 12 organisations responding. 1 Elected Member responded to a particular project with no other responses being received from other Members.

 

The Leader explained that all guidelines were adhered to. Information regarding the SPF was available via social media outlets and on the Denbighshire County Council website, they stated that the SPF was there to be engaged with.  At the close of the application stage the Fund was oversubscribed, with the applications far outstripping the funding available.

 

The Head of Housing and Communities informed Members that the application process was published online and there was a short list developed according to the availability of funds and in line with UK Government guidelines. Applicants could view on the DCC website what funding was available for each type of project in each year. Each project’s deliverability was considered in accordance with the priorities that had been identified in the Council’s Investment Plan and having regard to its contribution to the Regional Investment Plan.

 

The Corporate Director- Economy and Environment explained the scoring Matrix and the Regional Investment Plan to Members. The Matrix was fundamentally the Regional Investment Plan that the Council had previously contributed to and had been approved by the UK Government. All applicants for the SPF were assessed on their ability to deliver on the outcomes and outputs of the Regional Investment Plan. An additional element that was considered was the specific amounts of money that was allocated to each theme for each financial year and to Revenue and Capital activities. The Core Partnership Group needed to identify projects under each theme that would deliver against the outputs and outcomes of the Regional Investment Plan and financial allocations for each financial year.

 

At the conclusion of the introductory stage Committee members were given an opportunity to question the Leader and Officers.  In addition, non-Committee members were given an opportunity to ask questions and comment.  In response to the questions and observations raised confirmation was provided:

 

·       that details of the applications received could be shared in confidence with all members.  However, members would be obliged not to share detailed information any further.

·       that no monies had been released to the successful applicants to date.  Dependent upon the outcome of the call-in process those applications deemed to be successful would proceed to the second stage of the award process, which would include more detailed due-diligence testing taking place on their deliverability, both on time and within budget.

·       that all bids for SPF monies had to be for projects of at least £250K in value, conform to a strategic fit without duplicating existing provision and be delivered within the county’s geographic boundaries.  Applications for smaller, lower value, community focussed projects were being administered by Denbighshire Voluntary Services Council (DVSC) (for Community Capacity Building) and Cadwyn Clwyd (for Business Support)

·       they had every confidence in the decision-making process followed to date.

·       that Denbighshire was the only local authority in North Wales that had decided to take the decision-making process in relation to the SPF through the public facing democratic structure, via Cabinet.  In other authorities the decisions in relation to application were being taken via the Lead Member delegated decision process.

·       that the SPF funding stream had been designed by the UK Government and the process supporting it were subject to guidance provided by the UK Government not the local authority.

·       the longlist of applications received had been shared with the Wider Stakeholder Group on 2 March 2023.  The e-mail sent to this Group, which included the Chairs of each MAG, on 2 March (copy at Annex C to the report) requested their comments on the applications’ strategic fit and deliverability.

·       that SPF monies formed part of a number of funding packages brought forward by the UK Government to replace previous pre-Brexit funding streams available from the European Union (EU).

·       that due to the tight timescales set out in the SPF guidance it would not have been possible to discuss local applications at individual MAG meetings as no meetings were scheduled within the permitted timeframe.

 

Prior to drawing the discussion to a close both sides of the debate were given the opportunity to summarise the reasons and rationale behind their viewpoints and decisions.

 

 

Signatories:

Officers and Members were thanked for the coherent debate that had taken place. It had been pleasing to hear that Officers had identified that lessons with regards to communication had been learnt and would be taken forward. There were feelings that the term `tight timescales` had been used readily throughout the debate and references were made to an online meeting being easily coordinated for Members. There was fragility in the communication with MAGs and this needed to be improved. Valuable information had been shared during the debate relating to the SPF which had been beneficial however, throughout the SPF process this was felt to be absent. Non-Cabinet Members felt that they were not trusted with confidential information and there was a need to ensure that all information was shared equally with all Members as they required to communicate with their residents and communities. It was concerning to understand that external partners had been perceived to have received more information on the SPF than local Members which also contributed to Members not being sufficiently engaged with the SPF process.

 

Leader:

The Leader agreed that there had been a good debate and that lessons were to be learnt and taken forward regarding communication. During the debate Members received information from Officers about the complex process of the SPF. The process was complex and fast moving due to the timescales that had been set. Member engagement in relation to SPF applications had formed part of the discussion on the subject at the Cabinet meeting in January 2023 and an email to MAG Chairs was circulated as an outcome of this. The process was open and accessible, and the large number of applications received was evidence of this. An invitation to Members was circulated to engage Members in the Partnership Group. There were many opportunities for Members to engage in the SPF process.

 

The Chair thanked the signatories and the Leader for summarising their reasons and rationale.

 

At the conclusion of the summaries Councillor Huw Hilditch- Roberts Proposed the following:

 

That the Committee recommend Cabinet, that it’s decision on the 25 April be upheld and in doing so confirm that Cabinet agrees that:

 

(i)             information on the evaluation conclusions relating to each individual application received for Shared Prosperity Funding be shared with all County Councillors forthwith;

(ii)            information relating to the governance arrangements for the Shared Prosperity Funding should be shared with all Councillors;

(iii)          each Member Area Group will be updated on any risks identified relating to individual projects and on progress with their deliverability going forward;

(iv)          the Communication Plan relating to the Shared Prosperity Funding be shared with all County Councillors and

(v)           the Leader, Lead Member for Corporate Strategy, Policy and Equalities and the Corporate Director: Environment and Economy will liaise with local Members prior to taking delegated decisions that may be required, as outlined in the Cabinet report on 25 April 2023.

 

Prior to seeking the Committee vote upon the above proposal the Chair asked the Interim Head of Legal, HR and Democratic Services to clarify to Committee Members what their options were in relation to the decision which had been called in. The Interim Head of Service explained that the Committee when voting on the proposed recommendation could ask Cabinet to:

·       reconsider its original decision on the basis of the grounds stated

·       uphold the original decision as taken by Cabinet; or

·       recommend to Cabinet that its original decision be upheld but in upholding the decision that Cabinet should explore further the aspects outlined in the recommendation put forward.

 

The Chair welcomed Members views on the above and at the conclusion of an in-depth debate the Committee:

 

Resolved: - having considered the information in the report and its associated appendices, along with the representations made during the course of the discussion in relation to the application and shortlisting process, to recommend to Cabinet that its decision of 25 April 2023, insofar that it relates to the projects shortlisted by the Core Partnership Group for approval, be upheld, and in doing so confirm that Cabinet agrees that:

(i)             information on the evaluation conclusions relating to each individual application received for Shared Prosperity Funding be shared with all county councillors forthwith;

(ii)           information relating to the governance arrangements for the Shared Prosperity Funding will be shared with all county councillors;

(iii)         each Member Area Group will be updated on any risks identified relating to individual projects and on progress with their deliverability going forward;

(iv)         the Communication Plan relating to the Shared Prosperity Funding be shared with all county councillors; and

(v)           the Leader, Lead Member for Corporate Strategy, Policy and Equalities and the Corporate Director:  Environment and Economy will liaise with local members prior to taking any delegated decisions that may be required, as outlined in the Cabinet report of 25 April 2023

 

The Chair thanked Members and Officers for their contributions to the debate on what was an extremely complex matter.

 

At this juncture the Committee adjourned for a break.