Agenda item

The Committee received a report of the Corporate Director of Regeneration Economy and Growth which provided an update on the UK Shared Prosperity Fund Programme and the Rural England Prosperity Fund for County Durham, including governance and performance management arrangements and an update on programme implementation (for copy see file of minutes).

The Head of Economic Development introduced the report, highlighting that the report provides members with an update on the Shared Prosperity Fund Programme, the Rural England Prosperity Fund for County Durham including governance and performance management arrangements, an update on programme implementation and progress of the Levelling Up Fund.  In relation to the UK SPF, members were reminded that this was Government’s replacement for multiple strands of EU funding.  He continued that DCC was the lead local authority for the UK SPF, Multiply and REPF programmes in County Durham and was responsible for the funding received from Government, allocating the funding, managing calls for projects, commissioning activities and delivering activities together with partners.

The Funding and Programmes Manager commented that DCC was the accountable body for the UK SPF.  The funding was allocated across a three-year period and it was highlighted that this was not along funding period.  She reminded members that County Durham had a UK SPF allocation of £30.8 m which was predominantly a revenue grant scheme, with an element of capital funding.  She continued that the UKSPF Investment Plan had been developed and was used to guide investment decisions. Since the investment plan was submitted, the IES had been approved and a Delivery Plan for the strategy had been developed setting out the actions to be taken.  This process and the timing of the strategy and plan had allowed the UKSPF to be flexed to deliver a number actions within the IES Delivery Plan.  She continued that paragraph 18 of the report shows that just over £29m of the fund had been committed leaving just over £1m to be committed and it was confirmed that proposals are in development to ensure the take up in full of the remaining balance.

In relation to the investment priority of Supporting Local Business, the funding and Programmes Manager commented that the year 1 allocation of funding focused on preparing for the delivery for the delivery of activities in Years 2 and 3 and to prepare this groundwork for future years delivery, two research and facilitation projects were commissioned. The first piece of research was Understanding Rural Durham and the second piece of work was to prepare the ground for creating an integrated partnership delivery approach to supporting enterprise and business start-up, the Enterprising Durham Framework.  Concerning business productivity and growth an open call was sent out for a partner to deliver a grant scheme to micro and small rural enterprises (The Durham Productivity and Growth Programme).  A joint call was issued with the North of Tyne Combined Authority in February 2023 to deliver innovation and R&D activity, the In-Tune project which was led by Durham University. Finally in relation to this priority members were made aware of the establishment of Enterprising Durham a programme of enterprise and animation across County Durham to be delivered with a wide range of partners.

In relation to the investment priority of Communities and Places it was confirmed that a project had been developed in relation to community infrastructure, focusing on investment in and access to community assets and buildings.  It was highlighted that the project aims to increase community resilience and sustainability through a co-design process with communities. Concerning Place Branding it was confirmed that investment had been made into a Place Branding project which was being led by VCD which will enable the development of a brand for County Durham. A project had also been developed and approved focusing on town centre vitality which will deliver a series of cultural engagement events across the county for the next two years.

Concerning the People and Skills investment priority, members were informed that provision was made within the County Durham Investment Plan for the continuation of existing EU funded Voluntary and Community Service activity ‘at risk’ in years 1 and 2 of UK SPF, supporting those furthest from the labour market. An employment support project had also been developed and had been designed to ensure that residents opportunities in the labour market are improved and to support the ongoing growth of the county’s economy. The Skills Support project in County Durham will form part of a co-ordinated approach to improve skills across the county.  Finally, under this priority a project developing new careers offer in direct response to identified gaps in current provision. 

The Funding and Programmes Manager continued that in relation to the Rural England Prosperity Fund an open call was launched in July 2023 for projects to deliver capital investments to develop, extend, restore or refurbish local tourist assets and infrastructure to improve the visitor experience. A total budget of £600k had been allocated to this call. The decision in relation to successful applications was expected in the next month or so.

In relation to governance arrangements, the Funding and Programmes Manager confirmed that the CDEP + board, advise, support, challenge and influence the delivery of the UK SPF and the REPF within the county. The Board advise on the design, commissioning, and performance management of both the UKSPF and the REPF, specifically it was responsible for advising on the strategic fit and deliverability of UK SPF and REPF investment activities during the programme period. The Funding and Programmes Manager confirmed that it had been agreed that this function was delegated to the Partnership’s Technical Funding Group which meets on a monthly basis to advise on projects being brought forward and reports to the Board on a six-monthly basis.

In relation to the update on the Levelling Up Fund, The Funding and Programmes Manager reminded members that in 2021, Central government announced £4.8 billion LUF to provide investment in infrastructure, town centre and high street regeneration, local transport projects and cultural and heritage assets.  The first round of bidding was launched in March 2021 and DCC was awarded £20m with further guidance for Round 2 levelling Up bids released in March 2022 with the deadline for bid submissions the 6 July 2022. A number of proposals were developed and the council submitted five bids however the bidding criteria was changed resulting in funding only awarded to lead local authorities which had been unsuccessful in Round 1. In relation to Round 3, it was confirmed that there was £1billion to be allocated however the Service Grouping was awaiting guidance on the criteria for the allocation of funding.

In response to a query from Councillor A Sterling regarding the Levelling Up Fund and if the council intended to re-submit the five bids that had been unsuccessful in Round 2, the Head of Economic Development hoped that clearer guidance would be provided in Round 3 and advised that colleagues would focus on the guidance to shape and submit the bids.

Councillor A Surtees made reference to a project in Easington in relation to Community Assets and Woodland Area which had been submitted for Levelling Up Funding. Funding had already been allocated to the Horden bid and queried why the council had not back filled the funding gap as a result of the unsuccessful Levelling Up Funding bid. The Head of Economic Development responded that £6m of funding had been available to Horden through the Towns and Villages programme and that when the LUF bid was unsuccessful the council was still committed to the £6m for Horden. He continued that there was still safeguarded funding available in the Towns and Villages programme for match funding, however he was unsure as to where the funding was committed to and that it may be needed  for match funding for LUF Round 3.

Councillor C Lines expressed concern regarding funding availability via the REPF stating that it would not make much of a difference to rural communities. He highlighted the physical and digital remoteness of the rural communities and the delays with regards to Project Gigabit and asked whether Government could be lobbied for more funding. The Head of Economic Development advised that the REPF was a small pot of money and only one of the funds available. He added that in relation to the UK SPF there was more flexibility in how it was used. The Funding and Programmes Manager added that the REPF was a means of allocating to areas that have not benefitted from the UK SPF and advised that she would look at the Delivery Plan to address the points raised.

Councillor B Moist commented that Members understood that there was not enough funding however, he felt that the issue was with the governance of the funding. Local authorities were told where funding had to be provided rather than being able to direct where it was needed most. In relation to the investment priority Business Productivity and Growth and the partnership project with Umi, he asked whether Umi were on a fee basis and asked for further detail in relation to the town centre Vitality project and who would manage the project. The Head of Economic Development advised that Umi had submitted an expression of interest and were successful working with business Durham and RTC North as delivery partners for the Durham Productivity and Growth Programme. The Funding and Programmes Manager added that an open call had been issued for one integrated partnership to deliver the project and confirmed that the project would be led by Business Durham.  Umi had been used by Tees Valley and had a lot of experience in delivering this type of project. The Funding and Programmes Manager commented that the Vitality project was a wayfinding pilot directing to places within towns and will be managed by the Regeneration/Economic Development Team.

In response to a question from Councillor J Miller regarding investment in front streets, the Funding and Programmes Manager advised that she could provide the events programme and made reference to the Town and Villages Programme that complimented the Events Programme. She added that there would also be the Community Infrastructure Project which targeted rural isolated communities and the Place Lab Programme which still needed to identify settlements. The Head of Economic Development added that it was mainly revenue activity that was funded via the £25m Town and Villages Programme and confirmed that there was still funding to be allocated in the final tranche. He confirmed that this could be looked at when considering future areas for funding.

Resolved:

That the report be noted.