Agenda item

Bishop Auckland Towns Fund / Future High Streets Fund Governance - Presentation by Interim Head of Planning, Development and Housing

Minutes:

The Committee received a presentation from the Interim Corporate Director Regeneration Economy and Growth which provided details on the two major funding investment streams for Bishop Auckland, programme delivery and project management and monitoring processes in place to ensure oversight of performance, expenditure and risk (for copy of slides see file of minutes).

 

The Interim Corporate Director Regeneration Economy and Growth gave a detailed presentation highlighting the following areas:

 

·        Current Project Status and Project Position;

·        Future High Street Fund Governance;

·        Stronger Towns Fund Governance;

·        Governance and Engagement;

·        Durham County Council’s Delivery and Accountability;

·        Bishop Auckland Delivery Board;

·        Active Projects;

·        Key Issues.

 

It was noted that a ‘Strategic Advisory Group’ had been created which was made up of local members and representatives from various groups and organisation within Bishop Auckland to aid transparency of the project and improve communications after concerns were raised.

 

Councillor A Jackson asked if the Strategic Advisory Group and the decision making process could be included in the structure slide to show where it sits within the process and develop the structure to explain how the different levels of responsibilities differ to provide the public with a better understanding of the structure that will be delivering the investment for Bishop Auckland.

 

Responding to a query from Councillor M Johnson regarding the current project status table, the Interim Corporate Director Regeneration Economy and Growth explained that some projects are match funded and requirements include that government grant funding is defined from private sector and Council funding.

 

Responding to a query from Mr C Robinson in relation to the accountable body, the Corporate Director of Resources advised that funding from Government was allocated to the Council who are accountable for all the expenditure for the two initiatives. He added that the Council have a legal responsibility to make sure public funding that has been allocated to it is accounted for correctly, is allocated and spent in a way that demonstrates value for money and that what it is spent on meets the Government grant conditions. The Audit Committee’s role would be to ensure that sufficient controls were in place to discharge those responsibilities effectively.

 

Mr C Robinson was happy with the Councils response to a recent news article where a partner questioned the approach being taken and noted the challenges relating to priorities and governance arrangements. The Corporate Director of Resources commented that people have different views and priorities, but the Council would not deviate from the projects that the fund was awarded to deliver unless this was agreed by Government. He added that before funding is signed-off and released, the Government requires detailed business cases and the role of the Accountable Body is to ensure that the money allocated is spent on the projects that were approved and in line with Government requirements.

 

The Interim Corporate Director Regeneration Economy and Growth added that the Stronger Towns Board, on which the Council has representation, was overseeing the delivery of the Stronger Towns Fund investments. The Council was supporting and advising the Board and ensuring that projects deliver the outcomes against the published investment plan and provide value for money.

 

Responding to Mr C Robinson query regarding major risks, the Interim Corporate Director Regeneration Economy and Growth advised that the major risks was timescale and ensuring there are sufficient resources to deliver the plan. Another risk was making sure all the information was gathered to produce the business case to secure the funding for the Stronger Towns Fund and in terns of specific projects, the Eastern Sustainable Access Corridor which requires planning permission. New attractions to the town will see an increase in the numbers of visitors so the planning process will have to ensure that the new attractions are delivered before commitment is made to building new roads which was a key interdependency. The Corporate Director of Resources added that the regeneration scheme was in the centre of a town and there were various risks relating to complex land and highway issues and construction price inflation at this time. 

 

Mr C Robinson acknowledged the good case study for any other types of arrangements where the council is the accountable body and asked if the Audit Committee would receive the same assurances that other projects would be managed in the same way. The Corporate Director of Resources advised that the size and complexity of the Bishop Auckland project was unprecedented, however, the Council has a capital programme of £200M this year and is dealing with large scale complex projects on a regular basis. The funding regime was more complex with the Towns Board which had created some misunderstanding within the Towns Board regarding accountable body status. Lessons have been learned regarding communicating projects better with residents and businesses which has been rectified by strengthening governance arrangements with the Partnership Board.

 

Referring to the Stronger Towns Board legal status, Mr I Rudd queried whether the money is paid directly by the Council or if the Council provides funds to the Board for them expend. The Interim Corporate Director Regeneration Economy and Growth explained the role of the Board which was to submit the plan to Government and suggest projects to be funded by the Stronger Towns Fund. The Board and the Section 151 Officer would then sign-off on the business cases to secure the funding. Once funding was secured the Board have no further role in terms of funding and delivering projects. Responsibility then rests with the Council as the accountable body to procure the projects and distribute the funding. The Corporate Director of Resources added that the accountants check all the monitoring and grant claims and internal audit certificates would be issued. External audit would also examine this as part of the Annual Audit of Accounts. 

 

Councillor A Jackson referred to the Stronger Towns Board Term of Reference document which suggested that there was a degree of deliverability and procurement of the Board. The Interim Corporate Director Regeneration Economy and Growth clarified that Government provided a sum of money to the Board to purchase the services of consultants to help support the delivery of the town investment plan and does not include procurement of individual projects.

 

Resolved:

That the information presented be noted.


 

Supporting documents: