Agenda and draft minutes

Special Scrutiny, Scrutiny Committee - Monday, 25th July, 2022 6.30 pm

Venue: Rooms 2 & 3, Burnley Town Hall

Contact: Alison McEwan  Democracy Officer

Note: Shared Prosperity Fund 

Items
No. Item

29.

Apologies

To receive any apologies for absence.

Minutes:

Apologies were submitted on behalf of Councillor McGowan and Chief Operating Officer Lukman Patel.

30.

Minutes pdf icon PDF 132 KB

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 7th July 2022.

Minutes:

The minutes of the meeting held on 7th July 2022 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

31.

Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of interest from Members relating to any item on the agenda, in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Conduct and/or indicate if S106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applies to them.

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest in any of the items on the agenda.

32.

Shared Prosperity Fund pdf icon PDF 110 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Kate Ingram, the Strategic Head of Economy and Growth presented the proposed UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) Investment Plan which was due to be submitted to the Department of Levelling Up, Housing and Communities by 1st August 2022.

 

The funds replaced EU funding streams including ESIF and ERDF which had, hitherto, been delivered on a county wide basis. Across the county the amount of SPF funding available was approximately 40% less than the current European Funding Programmes. Burnley Borough Council had been allocated £3,488,102.00 over the next three years, heavily backloaded into year three.

 

In developing the Investment Plan officers had assessed 41 prescribed interventions against the Council’s priorities in the Economic Recovery and Growth Strategy and the Community Recovery Plan to assess best fit with local priorities. These were identified in Appendix 4. There were also some interventions which overlapped and the best fit had been chosen for ease of administration. Since the agenda papers had been published it had been proposed that intervention E5 (page 21) be struck out as there was nothing in it that could not be delivered under intervention E3, and E34 (page 23) had been struck out similarly due to its overlap with E33.

 

Members asked a number of questions and made a number of observations as follows:

 

-        What was the reduction in funding in relation to the former European programmes? – Across the county it was approximately 40% but Burnley had probably had a greater share due to the number of employment and skills initiatives underway..

 

-        It was a good report but there was nothing in there aimed at improving the desperate housing situation in certain parts of the borough, including in Queensgate, Bank Hall, Daneshouse and Gannow – There were no prescribed interventions around housing stock for the Council to select.

 

-       There was nothing in there relating to capital funding to assist manufacturing industries to expand and upskill their workforce. – The Council had considered a capital grant scheme, but there was insufficient funding in the programme for a meaningful scheme.  The Council had its own fund to assist businesses.  With regard to skills there were lots of other funding streams available, including to colleges, to deliver skills programmes for manufacturing businesses.

 

-        There was a desperate shortage of staff in health and social care but rates of pay were so low – combined with support there were opportunities for people to move into jobs.

 

-        This was a good report but the amount available from the government was derisory.

 

-        What would the Colne Road Enhancements (E1) look like? – these would be environmental enhancements that would be co-designed with local residents and shopkeepers.

 

-        It was uncomfortable to read that 92% of Burnley’s economically inactive population (neither in employment nor unemployed) did not actually want a job.

 

-        Those running kills and work programmes regularly said that they needed to get more people onto the programmes. Did something need to be done differently? –  SPF offered  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

33.

Exclusion of the Public

To determine during which items, if any, the public are to be excluded from the meeting and to consider the exclusion of the public from the meeting before discussion takes place on the following items of business on the grounds that in view of the nature of the business to be transacted if the public were present there would be a disclosure to them of exempt information within the meaning of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972.

Minutes:

Members determined to exclude the public from the meeting before discussion took place on the following item of business on the grounds that in view of the nature of the business to be transacted if the public were present there would be a disclosure to them of exempt information within the meaning of part 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

34.

Rough Sleeping Programme

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Wilma Waddingham, Housing Needs Manager, presented a report which sought approval to accept a capital and revenue grant funding award from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in order to establish a rough sleeping accommodation programme in Burnley.

 

Members were mindful of the increase in recent years of housing advice enquiries, households at risk of homelessness and the demand for temporary accommodation. They were supportive of initiatives to improve the provision of temporary home in the borough and reduce the risk of rough sleeping.

 

IT WAS AGREED

That the report be noted.