Report of Assistant Chief Executive.

N.B.  In accordance with Section 81 of the Local Government Act 2000 and the Members’ Code of Conduct, Councillors Mrs. L. Hovvels and W. Waters declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the above item and left the meeting.

Consideration was given to a report regarding the above. (For copy see file of Minutes).

Members were reminded that the Local Improvement Programme (LIP) had been oversubscribed across all the Area Forum areas which had resulted in the need to prioritise project activity within the localities to ensure that funding was targeted at projects that would have clear community outcomes. 

Consequently over recent weeks discussions had been held with all eligible project applicants to discuss their funding requirements and the Capital Project Team in conjunction with the Council’s Management Team had assessed the projects into three main categories - priority schemes, reserve schemes and projects not deemed appropriate for financial support by the Council.

Members’ attention was drawn to the table detailed in Appendix 1, which summarised all project recommendations within each Area Forum locality.

It was pointed out that some of the projects contained in Appendix 1 still needed confirmation of some technical issues such as match funding or planning permission considerations. 

Members noted that not all LIP monies had been allocated to exact project activity as it was proposed that within Areas 1 and 4 further discussions take place with identified reserve project applicants to assess the accurate picture and a further report focusing purely on those projects be considered at a later date.

Specific reference was made to the proposed approach to contingency planning and risk analysis to ensure deliverability of the programme.

It was also pointed out that given the number of projects involving play and open space improvements, the opportunities to lever in Section 106 monies to assist with the funding of priority LIP projects, should be investigated.

It was reported that where projects were eligible for LIP grant assistance but had received a lower ranking than priority for financial assistance, the Capital Programme Team had expressed a wish to assist the applicants to further develop their project ideas should capacity exist under other external grant programmes such as Lottery Funding and Coalfield Regeneration Trust.

RESOLVED :         1.         That the approach taken to prioritising projects and the decisions set out  in Appendix 1attached to the report, be approved.

2.            That the fluid nature of some projects be acknowledged and the process for reviewing the priority project list to mitigate risks and for implementing  the identified contingency process should schemes not proceed due to technical issues or identified match funding not being secured, be supported.

                                 3.         That the approach taken in utilising Section 106 monies towards priority LIP projects where appropriate be agreed.