Agenda item

To consider a report (which includes confidential appendices) by Councillor Jason McLellan, Leader and Lead Member for Economic Growth and Tackling Deprivation (copy enclosed) on the application and shortlisting process and seeking Cabinet’s approval to fund the projects as recommended by the Core Partnership Group.

RESOLVED that Cabinet –

 

(a)       confirms it has understood the application and shortlisting processes and approves those procedures being fair and open;

 

(b)       agrees to fund the projects shortlisted by the Core Partnership Group (Appendix C to the report), and

 

(c)        grants delegated powers to the Leader to make subsequent decisions, in consultation with the Lead Member for Corporate Strategy, Policy and Equalities and the Corporate Director Environment and Economy.  These decisions might be required should the circumstances described in paragraphs 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11 of the report occur.

Councillor Jason McLellan presented the report on the application and shortlisting process for Shared Prosperity Funding (SPF) and sought Cabinet’s approval to fund the projects as recommended by the Core Partnership Group.  The report included confidential appendices detailing the applications (which included financial and business affairs) and recommended outcomes, and Cabinet was advised by the Monitoring Officer to move into private session to discuss those elements.

 

The Head of Housing and Communities, Interim Head of Service: Performance, Digital and Assets and External Funding Manager attended for this item.

 

Cabinet was guided through the application and shortlisting process in detail.  The fund had been heavily subscribed with 110 applications totalling £88.7m against a £25.6m allocation.  An overview of monies received and projects recommended for approval, projects not recommended for approval, and a reserve list of projects had been provided (Appendix C to the report). Feedback on the longlist of projects from the wider partnership group (Appendix B to the report) had been shared with the Core Partnership Group to inform their deliberations.  Applications which had not passed the initial screening were also provided together with bids for monies already allocated to DVSC or Cadwyn Clwyd which would be signposted to those organisations (Appendix A to the report).  All projects had merit and those not approved would be given positive feedback and signposted for further support.

 

The Head of Housing and Communities also highlighted the following –

 

·         challenges faced both locally and regionally given the parameters set in administering the programme and funding allocation in tight timescales

·         implications for regional projects which required approval across council areas, and the use of a reserve list should funds become available, with Cabinet asked to delegate authority to the Leader, in consultation with others, in that regard

·         the approach taken to the People and Skills theme for Working Denbighshire to commission services.

 

Cabinet discussed the application and shortlisting process which it considered to be very robust and inclusive, and challenging in terms of making decisions on projects.  The volume of applications received compared to the funding available meant that, regretfully, many applications could not be approved.  Cabinet had been reassured that the council would continue to work with unsuccessful applicants with a view to providing further support and potential pathways to other or future funding streams to progress those projects where possible via other means.  The situation post-Brexit was also highlighted with the point made that a number of indicators had identified a significant shortfall in the UK Government’s replacement for EU funding.

 

Cabinet had also been pleased to note the balance of representatives on the wider partnership group, with wide ranging input across different sectors in that process.  The commissioning of DVSC and Cadwyn Clwyd to administer lower level grants for projects and building community capacity was also highlighted and the Leader thanked those organisations for their input.  The commissioning approach for Working Denbighshire was also welcomed, particularly to engaging with hard to reach groups.  It was noted that the other decision-making processes across the region differed, with Denbighshire’s approach through Cabinet providing an open and transparent process.  Cabinet considered that residents and communities had been at the forefront in the decision making process in order to target those most in need, vulnerable, and hard to reach and thanked all those involved for their input.

 

At this point the Leader opened up the debate to non-Cabinet members.

 

A number of questions were raised to which the Leader and officers responded –

 

·         the criteria for Stage 1 had been clear and no direct contact had been made with applicants as enough information had been provided to make recommendations; Stage 2 involved obtaining more detail on deliverability, outcomes and outputs

·         the timescales involved did not allow for a right of appeal for individual unsuccessful applications; the call-in mechanism for scrutiny was available

·         disagreed that the approach should have involved greater detail being provided at the outset, with sufficient information provided to make a recommendation and further detail and due diligence provided in the second stage of the process

·         it was accepted that unsuccessful applicants would be disappointed but there was a finite amount of funding available for allocation and there would be continued dialogue with unsuccessful applicants with positive feedback provided and signposting to further support and possible funding avenues as appropriate

·         much of the approach taken to the process had been informed by the UK Government in terms of the funding parameters and composition of the Core Partnership Group, which had been extended to include wider consultation

·         officers were unaware of any projects that had been downgraded due to lack of clarity regarding timescales for delivery

·         as mandated, funding had been allocated across the themes rather than a geographical spread across the county.  However, most of the projects recommended for approval were countywide

·         in terms of future funding it was likely that the UK Government would announce further funding at the end of the current Levelling Up and SPF programmes.

 

EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC

 

Cabinet moved to discuss the confidential appendices in the report and it was –

 

RESOLVED that under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the Press and Public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it would involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 14 of Part 4 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

 

The Head of Housing and Communities summarised the recommendations for the shortlisted projects by theme, which had been further sub divided to closely align to the corporate plan priorities, with projects prioritised against the funding provided.

 

Cabinet noted that the programme framework and funding parameters had been set by the UK Government and the situation remained fluid.  Following negotiations with the UK Government it had been confirmed that the multiply underspend in Year 1 could be reallocated into Year 2 and further negotiations were ongoing regarding the potential to reallocate underspends from Years 2 and 3 into other themes going forward which would benefit projects on the reserve list.  Given the limited funding available it was inevitable that unsuccessful applicants would be disappointed and it was reiterated that those applicants would be provided with positive feedback and signposted to further support and other potential funding streams where possible.

 

During the wider debate, some councillors highlighted the merits of particular projects in their ward areas which had not been recommended for approval, for Cabinet to review, and ensure at the very least, best endeavours were made to support those projects to progress in the future.  The Leader reiterated the undertaking to work with unsuccessful applicants to progress projects as appropriate and officers elaborated on the reasoning behind those specific projects not being recommended for approval.  The impact of the unsuccessful Vale of Clwyd Levelling Up Funding bid on some of those projects was also highlighted.

 

Members discussed the importance of addressing poverty and deprivation through SPF projects.  It was noted that the Regional Investment Plan had been closely aligned to the Corporate Plan and targeted to improve wellbeing and address deprivation across the county; the impact of those projects could be measured over the council term.  In response to questions officers advised that an overview of the projects had been included in Appendix B to the report and expanded on the reasoning behind the proposals based on a suite of projects to achieve each theme’s outputs and outcomes within the limited funding available.  Councillor Peter Scott was pleased to note recommended projects covering the Elwy Member Area.

 

In bringing the debate to a close the Leader reiterated the difficult decisions to be made and thanked members for their scrutiny and challenge in that regard.  Cabinet agreed to an amendment to include paragraph 4.10 in recommendation 3.3.

 

RESOLVED that Cabinet –

 

(a)       confirms it has understood the application and shortlisting processes and approves those procedures being fair and open;

 

(b)       agrees to fund the projects shortlisted by the Core Partnership Group (Appendix C to the report), and

 

(c)        grants delegated powers to the Leader to make subsequent decisions, in consultation with the Lead Member for Corporate Strategy, Policy and Equalities and the Corporate Director Environment and Economy.  These decisions might be required should the circumstances described in paragraphs 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11 of the report occur.

 

At this point (11.35 am) the meeting adjourned for a refreshment break.

 

OPEN SESSION

 

Following completion of the above business the meeting resumed in open session.