Agenda item

The Chair invited Paul Green, Policy Adviser, to introduce the report.

Paul introduced the report which provided an update following the announcement of the successful Community Renewal Fund (CRF) pilots.

Board Members made the following comments:

·       A Board Member emphasised the significant need for alignment between the Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) and wider inclusive growth funding.

·       Concerns had been raised in relation to the CRF’s competitive bidding process, the potential elimination of collaborative working between local authorities, the impact on less affluent areas, and potential endangerment of long-term urban regeneration.

·       The importance of ensuring best value for money and long-term evidence-based solutions was emphasised.

·       A Board Member requested more information in relation to the successful bids.

·       A Board Member raised a concern in relation to the added level of bureaucracy.

·       The importance of co-design and working in partnership was emphasised.

·       Concerns had been raised which related to the time and money wasted on the cost of the competition process.

Paul responded to Board Members’ comments:

·       The concerns related to the competitive bidding process continued to be raised by the LGA and had been since first lobbying for the replacement of European (EU) funding. It was understood that government had started to better understand the impact of fragmentation of funding and multiple bidding processes.

·       In relation to the UKSPF taskforce, officers representing local government were very clear about the benefits of EU funding in terms of the multi-annual funding stream. The clear message would continue to be delivered through LGA work to better understand the impact that the bidding process had had on successful programmes and to capture learning.

·       A list of the successful bids had been published online and was publicly available, Paul confirmed that he would circulate the information to Board Members outside of the meeting. With regards to the unsuccessful bidders, this would be a part of the LGA’s improvement offer to better understand the engagement that councils had had and the reasons for not being successful in the bidding process.

·       The bureaucratic element would also be captured within the improvement process and officers would speak to local authorities to capture the steps taken and reflect those steps within the outputs from the improvement process.

·       In relation to quantum, European structural and investment funds (ESIF) would continue to be spent until 2023 and phase out, whilst UKSPF phased in, and it would accumulate up to year 3 once ESIF had ceased. The budget for years 4-7 could not yet be set, it was important to ensure that the quantum was fully matched so that local areas did not miss out.

·       The strategic element was significantly important and had been raised by officer representation on the UKSPF taskforce, therefore senior civil servants had been made aware.

·       Attempted engagement with the new government Ministerial would continue, in the hopes of future engagement at a Member/officer level with government Ministers.

Decision:

·       Board Members noted the report.

Action:

• Officers would continue to attempt to engage with government Ministers and civil servants for a political meeting to highlight anguish with regards to the CRF, alongside the LGA’s People & Places Board.

• Officers to circulate a list of the successful bids to all Board Members, which had been published online.