To receive a presentation from Jan Willis, Interim Executive Director of Corporate Services in respect of the current position for the New Homes Bonus Community Fund and developments from the working group.
Minutes:
Jan Willis, Interim Executive Director of Corporate Services and Alex Thompson, Head of Finance and Performance attended the meeting to update the Committee in respect of the New Homes Bonus Community Fund.
Since this Committee last reviewed this item, Cabinet on the 6 February 2018, had approved the previous recommendations by this Committee to earmark £2m to create a specific “New Homes Bonus Community Fund” to be used over the next two financial years. Cabinet also noted that this Committee was willing to assist Cabinet by working on the details of a specific scheme to allocate funds. The Leader stressed the need to have the new model framework in relation to New Homes Bonus funding ready before the next Council meeting and had asked the Portfolio Holder for Finance and Communication to set up an urgent Working Group group in liaison with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee for this purpose.
The Working Group had met to discuss a model framework and established some ideas behind this. Jan and Alex presented this work to the Committee.
Funds would be allocated on the basis that:
· Parishes would be grouped according to area highways groups;
· There would be £50,000 allocation per area; and
· The balance of £2million would be based on housing completions between 2011-2017.
Jan and Alex presented some indicative figures to the Committee based on the hybrid system that allocated £50k flat rate per area, plus a percentage split from the seven area highways group based on number of new homes built. The funding would not be allocated to individual parishes, it was a flat rate plus a top-up with Ward Members making decisions.
Jan reiterated that grant money had to be spent by the end of the second year, no projects could extend beyond that period. There would be a clawback clause to grant awards and that money would return to the area it had been clawed back from.
The Committee asked for clarification about matched funding, and if it would be expected that large projects could expect to be funded from multiple sources. Jan advised that the expectation of the scheme was to add additionality and impact for the community through upgrading and enhancing services.
The Committee had some discussion about the timescales and whether the expectation that groups could complete projects in time especially with outdoor capital schemes that were weather reliant and were more likely to experience time slippage. Jan advised a key concern was that Town and Parish Councils could hold the grant funding in their reserves which was outside the spirit of the scheme.
Jan gave the example that if it was decided funding should be allocated to potholes, that funding could be transferred to the highways budget for that work.
Paul Bates, Portfolio Holder for Finance and Communications questioned if projects should be given a completion date of June 2021. The Committee agreed with the principle of the need to accommodate a long-stop date to write in flexibility for projects without it being open-ended.
The Committee agreed that any claw-back of funds should be at the discretion of the Ward Member.
Jan reminded the Committee that any grants would need to demonstrate themes in line with the Council’s strategic outcomes. Under each of these six strategic outcomes was a proposal of the type of grant application which would help sort the types of application being received for example, community transport, youth schemes, homelessness prevention and community allotments or orchards. With all grants there was the need to manage the expectations of the applicant that Ward Members would be helping to set and shape the priorities for their local areas.
Alex advised Members that the scheme needed to demonstrate good value for money and that there would be strong governance built in. In terms of application process, officers would score applications but Members would set the scheme parameters. Alex suggested that there would be a better outcome if the community worked together to have wider benefits, but the scheme would not exclude smaller projects but they may consider joining onto a larger scheme to pool resources.
The Chairman read some comments made by Councillor Toni Fox who was part of the Working Group. The Working Group were satisfied that ward members would be instrumental in the distribution of funds. The Group thought a proportion of NHB Funds should be allocated for each house built, there should be no minimum number of builds. They thought there should be no minimum amount of spend. This was to reflect where smaller communities could be disadvantaged when the impact of a smaller number of new houses could in some cases have a greater impact in an area than large developments in others.
The Committee agreed that, there should be a safeguard to ensure the areas where the homes had been built were not disadvantaged because of neighbouring wards being eligible for the larger share of the fund.
The Group felt that infrastructure needs were not being met through S106 and Council services were being cut. In recognition of this NHS Funds should be available to fill this shortfall. Finally they questioned what happened to money that was clawed back. An extended timescale for allocation of the money should be considered. However schemes that would not be deliverable within the two years should not be eligible under the rules of the scheme.
The Chairman noted some of these points had been addressed during the meeting.
RESOLVED: That:
(a) Jan and Alex be thanked for their attendance and presentations and for their work helping the shape and set the scheme;
(b) a long-stop date be written into the process for grant applicants;
(c) a discretionary claw-back of funds by the Ward Member be written into the process;
(d) a minimum threshold of £10k be considered;
(e) safeguarding for individual parishes be written into the process to ensure the areas where the homes had been built were not disadvantaged by neighbouring wards;
(f) deliverability be added to the schemes scoring criteria to ensure project be delivered within the two year threshold.