Agenda item

Referral from Cabinet: UK Shared Prosperity Fund: investment plan allocations (Report number: COU/WS/22/015 and addendum)

Following its meeting on 19 July 2022, which will take place following the publication of this Council agenda, the recommendations contained in this report will be referred by Cabinet to Council for a final decision.

 

The item is included as a separate agenda item rather than as a summarised referral from Cabinet.

 

Report number: COU/WS/22/015 TO FOLLOW

 

Minutes:

Council considered this report which sought approval for the West Suffolk UK Shared Prosperity Fund investment plan allocations.

 

Members confirmed that they had received copies of the report, which had been circulated following the distribution of the agenda for the meeting. In addition, an addendum was tabled which provided corrections to figures contained in tables at paragraphs 2.6 and 2.7. These corrections however, did not impact on the recommendations contained in the report, which had been referred by Cabinet for a final decision.

 

The £2.6 billion UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) was part of measures for implementing the Government’s Levelling Up White Paper and was the successor to EU Structural Funds covering the period 2022 to 2025.

 

The vision for the fund was that ‘it will lead to visible, tangible improvements to the places where people work and live, alongside investment in human capital, giving communities up and down the UK more reasons to be proud of their area.’

 

The report set out the requirements of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund and how West Suffolk Council’s respective funding allocation must be spent on specific ‘interventions’ listed by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) under three main investment priorities, as listed in paragraph 1.5 of the report. In order to access the total funding allocation of £1,943,467 (spread over three years as set out in paragraph 1.9), the investment plan was required to be submitted to the DLUHC by 1 August 2022.

 

Councillor John Griffiths, Leader of the Council, drew relevant issues to the attention of Council, including that the Council’s approach would see this funding supporting a range of initiatives to help:

-        the local economy, in particularly in the district’s high streets and rural areas

-        residents gain new skills and better job prospects

-        community projects and groups that would make a real difference to the prosperity and wellbeing of people in their area, including tackling the cost of living crisis

 

Reaching this point involved a large amount of work in order to meet the Government’s criteria, especially in terms of engagement with stakeholders. Councillor Griffiths thanked those that had replied and engaged in this process, which had been invaluable in shaping the report presented. Engagement would continue as work progressed into more detailed delivery. He also placed his thanks on record to officers for the enormous amount of work that had been undertaken on the process to date.

 

It was noted that once the funding had been split across three years and the range of priorities, the amounts were in some cases quite modest, and it would therefore be impossible to fund every initiative that was put forward during the engagement stage. 

 

Councillor Sarah Broughton, Portfolio Holder for Resources and Property, seconded the motion and demonstrated her support for the proposed investment plan allocations. Any new funding from Government was welcomed and this would go some way to support the Council’s own strategic priorities; however, it was also recognised that this funding would form only part of much larger existing Council investments and would sit alongside funding streams already in place.

 

Members were reminded that the investment plan did not detail specific projects as the Government required the Council to allocate its share of the UKSPF to interventions. Discussion was however, held on a range of topics where some members felt the funding was needed to be allocated, including:

 

·         Areas of deprivation, such as Brandon

·         To support local businesses to create ‘green’ jobs

·         To support communities in rural areas

 

It was reiterated that the £1.9 million was only one source of funding, with very strict requirements and did not represent the full range of investments being made by the Council. It was also hoped it would help to unlock further match funding streams (examples of which were given).

 

Council generally expressed its support for the proposed investment plan allocations and positively looked forward to the detail in due course. To ensure the process could continue in a timely manner, Council also agreed to endorse Cabinet’s decisions for enabling certain matters to be resolved under delegated authority.

 

On the motion of Councillor Griffiths, seconded by Councillor Sarah Broughton, it was put to the vote and with the vote being unanimous, it was

 

Resolved:

 

That:

1.       The West Suffolk UK Shared Prosperity Fund investment allocations (at Appendix B to Report number: COU/WS/22/015), for submission to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), be approved (these were approved by Cabinet on 19 July 2022).

 

2.       Cabinet’s decision be endorsed, that officers complete the full DLUHC investment plan template in line with the details contained in this report, COU/WS/22/015.

 

3.       Cabinet’s decision be endorsed, to delegate authority to the Chief Executive to make minor adjustments to the investment plan allocations before submission to Government, in consultation with the Leader of the Council.

 

4.       Cabinet’s decision be endorsed, to delegate authority to the Portfolio Holder for Resources and Property to implement the approved investment plan once funding has been received from DLUHC, including implementing minor variations in the funding amounts for each intervention, in order to respond to changing circumstances over the lifetime of the Fund.

 

(Councillor Paul Hopfensperger left the meeting during the consideration of this item and did not return. He therefore did not partake in the vote.)

Supporting documents: