Agenda item

The Business Growth Manager presented the report to update Members on the activities of the £15 million Regeneration Fund project awarded to the Council in the 2023 Autumn Statement; the fund was for “Place” based regeneration within the District.

Henham Strategy had been appointed December 2023 to work alongside the Economic Development Team to identify and appraise appropriate options around the utilisation of the regeneration funding.  Working alongside the Executive and acting on previous Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) feedback on the District’s Levelling Up Fund round 2 feedback, Henham Strategy had implemented a methodical approach to appraising potential options based on their insight into the bid development process.

Following this work, an Investment Plan had been submitted to DLUHC on 29^th March 2024, setting out the proposals for how the Fund would be directed to best meet the strategic priorities for regeneration of the Place across the District.

The projects proposed had been considered based on their alignment and ability to deliver the strategic priorities within the provided timescale of the Fund (delivery up to 31^st March 2026).  The projects would directly deliver economic, social, and environmental benefits to the District’s residents, businesses, and visitors.

Appendix 1 set out the 8 projects proposed, the financial allocation of each project, and the upcoming key milestones.

The Chair asked, with the UK General Election taking place in July 2024, was this capital secured irrespective of the result in Westminster.  The Business Growth Manager explained no comment, nor any confirmation could be made at this time.  The Council’s position was to await a signed investment plan from the UK National Government and DLUHC; to the day of the Committee, no memorandum had yet been issued to the Council.

A Member noted the report detailed the stakeholder engagement; Mark Fletcher MP for Bolsover had publicly stated he had not been engaged with this, and neither had the Committee in its scrutiny role – who was engaged in drawing up this strategy.  The Business Growth Manager reiterated from the previous Committee meeting that a Working Group of the Executive had been convened to carry out the consultation due to the limited timescale available of the Regeneration Fund; all projects had to be completed before 31^st March 2026.

A Member stated this had been a fraught process for the Council; were there any learnings from this process to avoid any similar issues in the future.  The Business Growth Manager stated it was difficult to know which the issues the Member was referring to, but generally, with the need to respond quickly to this allocation of funding, and the amount of information requested by DLUHC, it would have been unlikely to have been able to prepare and responded more successfully given these circumstances.  The Business Growth Manager listed the following restricted timeframe the Council was working under:

·       The announcement was made in October 2023;

·       The details from DLUHC had not been provided until 16^th January 2024;

·       The Council had received the application form in February 2024;

·       A response was required with the Council’s information within XX working days;

·       No response from DLUHC was received until more information was then requested, again within XX working days.

The Council was working in the background throughout the above to try and prepare for the application of funding, but until these requests were made, the Council could not anticipate what would be required, nor how it would be coordinated and presented to DLUHC.

The last request of information had been submitted to DLUHC in March 2024, and the Council was yet to formally hear whether the application was successful.  It had been agreed and signed by a Minister for DLUHC, Jacob Young MP, but the Council had not yet received anything formal committing this award to the District.

The Member clarified there had been no questioning of the work the Team had completed during the entailed difficult circumstances.

In response to a question on Project 1 of the attached Appendix, the Business Growth Manager explained the Place led programme was a piece of work the Tourist and Place Manager was leading on; this was a District wide Place promotion initiative while the Bolsover loop was a 28 mile (to be confirmed) route around the District (a multiuser network of trails).  The Bolsover Team would be promoting this loop, delivering signage and wayfinding across the District.  For Bolsover Town, it was about creating connections with the proposed new Sixth Form, the new housing developments, and the proposed creative hub.  The sustainable transport plan was a piece of work looking to encourage residents to use the trail and the networks rather than driving their vehicle into Bolsover Town, exacerbating air pollution and current parking issues.

The Business Growth Manager admitted one of the reasons Members may have felt a lack of clarity on projects present was due to the 150 word limit to explain how the Council would spend the £5 million; this had been a challenge for the Council when applying for this funding.  The Business Growth Manager noted these had been existing proposals outside of the Regeneration Fund.

A Member asked about the Green Skills Centres; there would be one at Pleasley Vale Business Park and another in Shirebrook, but why was this second site chosen when there was a potential to allocate it with the first to boost that area.  The Business Growth Manager stated these were complimentary sites led by the same Officer; they would not be competing.  The equipment and intentions of the second initiative would also not be serviceable at Pleasley Vale Business Park, hence the intention to use Shirebrook.

The Member asked about the Shirebrook Pavilion; storage for the market equipment was already present on site, so what was the thinking of this additional storage within Shirebrook.  The Business Growth Manager was unable to provide an answer as the decisions of these projects had been taken by Members of the Executive.  Officers had been asked to formulate the schemes after they had been forwarded by Members.  The Member asked if the same applied to the project in Pinxton.  The Business Growth Manager stated the building was already there for this project, it had been a community hall previous to or during the early phases of the COVID-19 Pandemic, but it was not currently operational.

The Business Growth Manager reiterated they could not answer questions relating to decisions made by Members of the Executive.  The deliverability of schemes was affected by the time constraints of projects before the 31^st March 2026 deadline; any projects outside this timeframe could not be completed before then and so could not be progressed (e.g., Blackwell Community Centre had been withdrawn due to this limited timescale).  All current projects listed in the attached Appendix were ready to go pending the memorandum of understanding be provided by DLUHC.

After a Committee-wide discussion, due to the concerns raised on the allocation of these projects being largely to areas where Members of the Executive represented, and to eliminate any impropriety felt by the Committee, it was decided to invite Members of the Executive to the next meeting to answer questions and clarify the logic and reasoning behind how these projects were chosen and assist the Executive by helping prevent such feelings of impropriety arising in the future.

Moved by Councillor Will Fletcherand seconded by Councillor Tom Kirkham

RESOLVED that the report be noted an invitation be extended to a Member of             the Executive to attend the next Committee meeting to clarify the logic             and reasoning behind the choices of these Regeneration Fund projects.