Agenda item

Consideration was given to a report which set out the latest progress towards the development, drafting and submission of an Investment Plan due by 31 October 2020.

It was noted that Section 1 of the Town Investment Plan had to set out the context and strategy for investment, based on evidence, the content of which had to align with the detailed guidance in no more than 10,000 words. This would be subject to scrutiny through a check and challenge process with Government on 1 October 2020 as reflected in the previous item.

Section 2 of the Town Investment Plan had to include a prioritised list of projects with details of how these projects aligned with the intervention framework, the rationale for investment, linked to the evidence, projected outputs and outcomes, funding and delivery timescales.

Lead partners had been working to provide the information required for submission within the Investment Plan during August and September, aided by the outcomes of the workshop held on 24 July 2020. The workshop itself had provided a useful and significant focus on high impact projects, helped better understand inter-relationships and the spatial and thematic links back to evidence with further opportunities to add value, understanding and development of climate commission and green recovery proposals. It was also useful to consider and remove those schemes which were out of scope.

Project information had now been submitted for all of the shortlisted proposals and the latest portfolio was summarised in the Town Investment Plan document considered in the previous item and as part of a presentation provided to the Board. The presentation illustrated how these projects would contribute to the key objectives and themes for the Town Fund and fit with the overall masterplan for the city.

In terms of project prioritisation, an assessment of their alignment with the Intervention Framework had been undertaken together with an assessment against local criteria based upon strategic fit, evidence of need and impact. In addition, the Green Book Criteria, the assessment criteria that would be used by Government in assessing submissions, had also been used which focussed on value for money, affordability, achievability, commercial viability and support.

Further to the above assessment, a separate high-level assessment had been undertaken by the Council’s consultants which scored and identified gaps and key risks.

It was acknowledged that some projects were still being developed and refined at the point the assessment had been undertaken, but the results of both assessments provided a good initial overview of where projects stood. It was noted, however, that there was significant cross-over between projects and that all projects included in the portfolio were of value and could contribute to the outcomes and vision of the Lincoln Town Improvement Plan. All projects, for example, scored considerably higher than 50% as part of both assessment exercises. It would therefore be necessary to consider projects and their prioritisation very critically. Further details were also being worked up on the anticipated cost of delivering some projects so there were still opportunities to see where projects could be delivered for less than anticipated, thereby requiring less of a funding ask. It was also accepted that the list of prioritised projects did not necessary reflect their significance in respect of cost and deliverability.

In answer to a question regarding revenue projects, it was noted that the Lincoln Made Smarter project was the only project in the portfolio that was revenue as opposed to capital.

It was reported that the value of the project portfolio currently exceeded the funding envelope of £25 million, which if submitted on that basis meant that they would be subject to a greater degree of appraisal and due diligence. It was agreed that this additional scrutiny should be avoided if possible as some of the costs associated with individual projects were estimated at this stage of the process.

Jo Walker, as part of her presentation, provided members with an overview as to what each project consisted of. Project leads were invited to provide additional information in relation to their projects, however, it was noted that this had been covered in some detail at the workshop held on 24 July. In considering individual projects, Board members, in recognition of some conflicts of interest, declared interests as follows:

·         Mary Stuart – declaration of interest in the Health and Wellbeing Centre, Lincoln City Football Club Stadium and Community Redevelopment and Hospitality Events and Tourism Institute projects due to her role at the University of Lincoln;

·         Liam Scully – declaration of interest in the Lincoln City Football Club Stadium and Community Redevelopment project due to his role at the City of Lincoln Football Club. He also declared that he was a member of the Lincoln City Foundation;

·         Caroline Killeavy – declaration of interest in the Hospitality Events and Tourism Institute project due to her role at the YMCA and her involvement as a partner in the project. She also declared that she was a member of the Lincoln City Foundation;

·         Gary Headland – declaration of interest in the Health and Wellbeing Centre, Lincoln City Football Club Stadium and Community Redevelopment and Hospitality Events and Tourism Institute projects due to his role at Lincoln College;

·         Charlotte Goy – declaration of interest in the Hospitality Events and Tourism Institute and Lincoln Central Market and Vibrant Public Realm projects due to her role at Visit Lincoln.

It was noted that projects would be subject to further independent analysis prior to being included in the final version of the Lincoln Town Investment Plan, with the final decision ultimately being taken by the City Council’s Executive. It was therefore deemed as being unnecessary for any member of the Board who had declared an interest relating to projects to leave or withdraw from the meeting during discussion as part of this item.

Gary Headland reflected on the significant amount of work project leads would need to undertake over the next few weeks and asked whether any upfront funding would be available by way of project support. It was noted that some funding had been allocated for this purpose, however, the initial amount scheduled for receipt from Government would not be sufficient to support each project and it was unclear whether any further funding would be provided upfront for such use.

In addition to the list of projects included in the portfolio, a further project for Greyfriars had been proposed which had received support from the Heritage Lottery Fund and included match-funding as a significant heritage site.

Gary Headland asked whether any further guidance had been issued regarding co-funding, particularly in respect of any respective ratios that may be expected. No specific levels had been set in respect of co-funding but it was essential to demonstrate that this had been explored, with the more co-funding achieved the better for individual projects.

It was agreed that a working group be established, comprising three members of the Board who had no conflicts in any of the projects included within the portfolio, to provide an independent review of the prioritisation of projects. The working group would also consider the inclusion of the Greyfriars project as part of the portfolio. Karl McCartney MP and Peter Neil volunteered to join the sub-group. A further representative would be invited to fill the remaining place from those members not in attendance and the working group would meet in the next few weeks.

It was RESOLVED that:

(1)          The report and presentation be noted.

(2)          A Working Group to independently consider the prioritisation of Town Deal projects be established, as set out above.