Agenda item

Kate Ellis, Major Developments Director:

a)    presented a report to members on the allocation of uncommitted funding, covering the following main points: -

·       LSIP had confirmed their withdrawal from the programme. Whilst the project was in a positive position from a capital perspective, there were issues with the revenue side and ongoing support of getting the facility up and running. It required such a subsidy in the initial 12-month period, and it was felt that the risk was too high to proceed

·       The remaining funding within the programme could only be used on existing schemes that added value

·       The proposal was to have a fair process for the allocation of the remaining funding with no advantages which included the opening and closing dates of a call for Expressions of Interest

·       The officer recommendation was that further to ensuring that the Sincil Bank project had sufficient funding, a call was made to remaining projects within the programme that offered additional outputs and outcomes for the remaining surplus funding

·       Focus Consultants had carried out an analysis which looked at the value for money element of the projects within the programme and each were given a BCR value for money rating. In addition, Focus Consultants had put together an expression of interest form

·       The focus of reallocation was to deliver the aspirations within the Town deal Investment plan.

b)    welcomed comments and questions from Members of the Board.

Note: Future reports would refer to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) after the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) had been renamed in July 2024.

Comment: Suggestion for the consideration of the sustainability of projects once Towns Funding ceased. Members did not want for any projects not to function or outputs not to be delivered that had been anticipated and hoped for. It would be positive to incorporate sustainability into the criteria.

Comment: It may be too early to spend the £300K overspend with Sincil Bank. Premature reallocation of funding could cause future problems.

Response: Consideration had been given only to assess if sufficient proposals would be received. In terms of dates for making decisions, when the Sincil Bank project was on site, an update would be released. Proposals at the current stage were to consider what projects may express an interest. It was possible, if expression of interests were to be received, that some may be nominally agreed but not approved until there was certainty on capital projects.

Comment: There had been a request for a full lessons learnt review. The funding of £1.1M could not be lost for Lincoln and it was important for the funding to be sat at the top of the decision-making matrix. Overall, it was disappointing that a project had been lost and it was important to consider the lessons that had been learnt. Discussions would be continued at Agenda Item 18, within Section B of the agenda.

RESOLVED that:

1)    The total of £800,000 from LSIP Hub and £300,000 from Sincil Bank to be set aside for reallocation to projects within the existing Town Fund Programme that could demonstrate additionality and deliverability, as per the criteria and process to be discussed at Agenda Item 18, within Section B of the agenda.

2)    The content of the report be noted with thanks.