Minutes:
The CE introduced the report and informed Members that the programme deadlines meant that the item had to be brought to Committee as an item of urgent business. He added that the Government’s prospectus for round 2 of the Levelling-Up Fund had been released in March, with North Norfolk increasing from a priority two to priority one area, which provided increased capacity funding to help develop proposals. It was noted that in this context, it was expected that the Council would submit proposals, and Cabinet had therefore given consideration to potential projects. The CE stated that there had been challenge and scrutiny of the District’s limitations, which primarily related to utility provision and the viability of development, that were beyond the control of the Council. He added that projects that were successful would be given a two year timeframe for completion, expected by March 2025, or March 2026 under exceptional circumstances. It was reported that officers and Cabinet had reviewed potential projects and had developed initial proposals for improved community sports provision in Fakenham, which would include a 25m swimming pool and potentially a 2G hockey pitch, to address the existing lack of provision in the area. Upon further consideration the second proposal included investment into the sunken gardens and North Lodge Park in Cromer, which had not seen investment for a considerable period of time. The CE informed Members that engagement with key local stakeholders had begun with Fakenham Town Council, Sport England and Everyone Active for the Fakenham proposal, alongside Cromer Town Council and the Friends of North Lodge Park for the Cromer Proposal, with bids to be submitted by July 6th.
Questions and Discussion
i. The Chairman raised a concern regarding process priorities and distribution, and stated that whilst he made no comment on the two proposals, areas east of North Walsham did not appear to feature in any major projects. He added that it was likely that Members and residents from this area would feel some discontent as a result, and suggested that there ought to be a list of project proposals that could be considered in the area. It was suggested that consultation could take place with local stakeholders during fallow periods, to have potential proposals ready in outline for consideration.
ii. Cllr H Blathwayt asked whether the eastern area of the District could be prioritised for the next tranche of funding, as he felt the area had been ignored. He added that he would like to see a proposal put in motion that the east is given priority. The Chairman suggested that waiting until the next round of funding would be too late, and proposals were needed now so that they would be ready for implementation on a call-off list.
iii. Cllr C Cushing stated that he strongly supported the Fakenham application as it was twelve years since the Town’s last swimming pool had closed, with the next closest being in Dereham or Wells. He added that he also supported the provision of the 2G pitch, which tied in with the vision for the Fakenham extension, as improved facilities would be required. Cllr C Cushing suggested that he would also be interested to understand how bids would be put together, and more details on how stakeholders would be engaged throughout the process.
iv. Cllr R Kershaw stated that he did not dispute that there was a need for projects in the eastern parts of the District, and it was clear that efforts were required to determine the needs of the area, so that projects could be in place ready for funding opportunities announced at short notice. He added that the Shared Prosperity Fund was expected which would provide £1.26m over three years, and whilst there was a tight schedule, he suggested that a Members briefing to review options and explain the limitations of the fund could be helpful.
v. Cllr A Brown referred to the Shared Prosperity Fund and noted that a recent study by the Rural Services Network had shown that historically there had been consistent underfunding of rural areas, which received 38% less than urban areas. He added that the Levelling-Up Fund appeared to have been launched with indecent haste, and asked to what extent proposals in the east had been given equal consideration. The CE replied that the Levelling-Up agenda and associated data had deemed wards in the east of the District low in terms of need relative to the programmes objectives, and as a result, it was possible that projects would not be supported in the area. He added that competition amongst bids would be strong, and the Council therefore had to submit bids with the strongest chance of success. It was noted that this did not mean that were wasn’t a need for support or proposals in the eastern parts of the District, but work would be required to properly identify these needs relative to the unique features of the area. The CE noted that previous proposals had considered improving employment land in areas such as Catfield, though the level of investment required did not appear to be matched by the level of demand.
vi. The Chairman accepted that time limitations had restricted the available proposals considered, and suggested in future that a wide variety of pre-prepared proposals should be made available to ensure that all areas could be given equal consideration.
vii. Cllr V Holliday suggested that she did not feel comfortable supporting proposals for Cromer, as she was not convinced that it would result in levelling-up for the wider District.
viii. Cllr S Penfold suggested that Members raise awareness of the Council’s own Sustainable Communities Fund, as whilst not at the same level, this could provide support for multiple projects in the east of the District. He added that very few applications were received from this region, with only one application east of Worstead in 2021 from Stalham.
ix. Cllr V Gay stated that she had experienced the same issues when receiving notification of funding opportunities with short timescales, which allowed for very little project exploration. She added that developing projects could take months or years, so there was a case for developing proposals in advance. Cllr V Gay stated that she did support the Fakenham proposal as it would provide real opportunities to all residents, and similarly so would the woodlands and gardens of Cromer.
x. Cllr R Kershaw stated that the Government aims of the project were very specific, and projects had been chosen for their adherence to the supplied guidance, as it was important to achieve funding success, rather than submit bids that were unlikely to succeed. He added that there was deprivation in Cromer that justified the need for funding support.
xi. The CE noted that bids for both the Levelling-Up fund and the Shared Prosperity Fund were expected within a relatively short timescale, therefore it was important that opportunities to share proposals with Members in advance of any bids being submitted were taken.
xii. The Chairman suggested that whilst the Committee was not required to make a recommendation on the funding proposals, it might be helpful to share the comments and concerns raised for future funding opportunities.
RESOLVED
1. To note the report.
ACTIONS
1. Briefing to be arranged on potential future project proposals and the Shared Prosperity Fund.
COMMITTEE OBSERVATIONS/COMMENTS
1. The process by which proposals are promoted and prepared for short notice funding schemes needs to be transparent, objectively scored against agreed priorities and fairly distributed across the District.
2. Opportunities needed for Town & Parish Councils to submit possible project proposals well ahead of funding scheme announcements, so that they are defined in outline and added to an approved investment list to be matched to scheme criteria, strategic priorities and equitably distributed, to enable more detailed proposal submission work to be efficiently targeted.
3. Both proposals had obvious merits; Fakenham facility appeared to be strongly supported for the BCA with clear infrastructure and regeneration benefits. Cromer proposal had to be seen in context of a wider range of possibilities across the NNCA. Given that there were no other outline project proposals for comparison or judgement, and the short funding scheme deadline, there was pragmatic agreement to support both proposals.