Agenda item

Councillor Lucille Thompson, Cabinet Member for Business and Culture introduced the report, ref EHP54 which set out the summary of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund And Rural England Fund Programmes 2022-2025, (available here).  The introduction included the following points.

1. The funding had significantly aided communities and residents in pursuing greener initiatives, reducing the carbon footprint, and supporting businesses across the district.
2. The Council had received £1.745 million to fund projects throughout the district at a time when resources were scarce.
3. A partnership board, comprising representatives from various sectors, had been established to ensure a wide range of views were considered in the selection and delivery of projects.
4. Over the three years, the UK Shared Prosperity Fund had supported 32 projects aligning with the investment plan, and the fund was on track to be fully spent. The Rural England Fund had supported 25 projects, also fully funded and on track to be fully spent.
5. The funds supported 20 carbon reduction projects, including seven EV charging stations and new foot and cycle paths.
6. 280 residents had gained qualifications in retrofit, alternative energy installations, and digital communications.
7. 22 businesses across the district had received funding in sectors including childcare, landscape gardening, sport, and the creative industries.
8. Matched funding had been secured, effectively doubling the money available by unlocking further investment from local businesses, communities, and other organisations.
9. The Government had confirmed a further UK Shared Prosperity Grant of £1,327,146 to be spent by the end of March 2026.

The committee was asked:

1.    To note the types of projects, distribution, impact and value derived from the UKSPF and REPF programme 2.

2.    To note the Government’s priorities and provide comment on the Council’s approach for distributing funds for the 2025/2026 UKSPF extension

The committee proceeded to ask questions and debate the report. In summary, the following matters were raised.

1. Clarification was sought regarding the variation in amounts allocated to different wards, as shown in the graph on page 20 concerning the Rural England Prosperity Fund and it was questioned why some wards, such as Central Meon Valley, were not included on the graph.
2. It was queried whether the absence of projects from certain wards was due to a lack of suitable proposals or other factors.
3. Whether ward councillors could assist in the process of project submission.
4. It was asked whether anything better could/should be done in terms of communications.
5. It was queried whether any good projects were unable to proceed due to a lack of sufficient matched funds.
6. It was asked if the amount of matched funding would be a barrier in the future.
7. Further information was sought regarding the engagement activities mentioned in paragraph 2.47 on page 23, to understand how the message could be more widely disseminated.
8. A question was asked regarding lessons learned from the past three years of the programme and whether any changes would be implemented in the next phase.
9. It was queried if it was possible to focus on areas with low funding, such as green space projects, which were below the expected target.
10. A question was raised regarding the £54,000 gap between the allocated amount (£1,745,000) and the amount spent (£1,691,000) and it was asked what would happen to this money.
11. A question was asked regarding the allocation of 42% of UKSPF and REPF grants to business-related activities, as stated in bullet point 2.17 and clarification was sought as to whether the anticipated percentage for business was set at the outset and if community efforts were being underfunded as a result.
12. Details were sought regarding the five or six projects initially included in the investment plan that did not materialise.
13. A question was asked regarding equality impact assessments and whether applicants were required to demonstrate outreach to a diverse range of people.
14. A question was asked regarding unsuccessful applicants and whether they received feedback on why their applications were rejected.
15. Clarification was sought on how ward areas were defined, particularly in areas with both urban and rural characteristics, to determine eligibility for the Rural Prosperity Fund.
16. A question was asked whether the percentage of allocations to businesses would revert to the original expectation for the next year, or if the current percentages would be used as a baseline.

These points were responded to by Councillor Lucille Thompson, Cabinet Member for Business and Culture, Susan Robbins, Corporate Head of Economy & Community and Camilla Sharp, Shared Prosperity Funding Officer accordingly.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the committee noted the concerns regarding the equitable distribution of funding across wards, particularly between rural and urban areas.

2.    That members would communicate with their respective wards, encouraging parishes and organisations to apply for grants in the upcoming year.

3.    That the Cabinet Member consider whether maintaining some level of contribution from businesses, as beneficiaries of the funding, should be pursued, acknowledging the reduction in match funding requirements to encourage business engagement.

4.    That officers explore avenues to encourage more community involvement and funding applications, alongside business-related projects.

5.    That officers continue to emphasise learning from both successful and unsuccessful projects, maintaining dialogue and providing feedback to applicants to ensure a steady stream of potential projects for the future.

6.    That the cabinet member considers the committee’s comments raised during the discussion of the item.