Agenda item

DECISION

1.    That the Welcome Back Fund activity, as outlined in Appendix A and agreed as eligible by MHCLG, be agreed.

2.    That authority to spend the funding of £62,811, in accordance with the proposed activities, be delegated to the Assistant Director of Economic Growth in consultation with the Portfolio Holder - Economic Development and Planning.

Portfolio Holders and Officer

NW/LR

REASON FOR DECISION

The Deputy Leader presented a report, regarding the result of the Council’s bid from the Government’s “Welcome Back Fund” and a request for delegated authority for its spend.

Councils across England were receiving a share £56m of this European Regional Development Funding (ERDF) to support the return to high streets safely and help build back better from the pandemic.  This funding built on the £50m Reopening High Street Safely Fund (RHSSF) allocated to authorities in 2020 and formed part of wider support the Government was providing to communities and businesses.

The fund would allow local authorities in England to put in place additional measures to create and promote a safe environment for local trade and tourism, particularly in high streets as their economies reopened. The fund supported plans to respond to the significant impacts of Covid19 on local economies.

The Council’s plans for the fund allocation of £62,811 were submitted to the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) on 28 May following consultation with Councillors through a Reserved Member Evening and with a range of stakeholders.  On 21 June, the Council received confirmation that MHCLG’s Welcome Back project team had reviewed the proposals and considered them eligible, as shown in Appendix C. The Council could now deliver the interventions set out in Appendix A: Welcome Back Fund activity.

The report requested approval to delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Economic Growth, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder - Economic Development and Planning to spend the fund allocation in line with the proposed activities.

In response to questions, the Assistant Director - Towns Fund confirmed that the funding was the remainder of the ERDF funding stream and had been allocated specifically to support the reopening of the high street following the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The details of proposed activity, set out in Appendix A, related to the project proposals approved by MHCLG and the Council had to ensure that expenditure was made in line with those proposals in order to be able to drawdown the funding.

The Leader thanked the team for their dedicated efforts in such a short time frame and achieving an extremely successful result.  The process was prescriptive and great care was taken when making applications because expenditure had to be in line with the approval.

The Deputy Leader brought Members’ attention to the indicative spend of the contracts within the table of proposed activity.  Now that approval had been received, detailed expenditure would be worked out and sent to MHCLG for approval as the process went along.

Members commended the officers for the success of the bid and welcomed the approved funding.  One commented that, although relatively modest projects, they would make a noticeable difference. 

A Member asked officers to urge MHCLG to provide additional funding to help with problems compounded by the lockdown, such as fly tipping, and to extend the offer of free car parking, in order to encourage business back into the high street.

The Deputy Leader confirmed that officers lobbied central government robustly and would continue to do so.  They always ensured that they submitted high quality applications for every funding stream available.

With respect to a suggestion to use social media, particularly one-minute videos, to communicate clearly with the eastern European communities, reference was made to existing community leaders’ meetings and the proposal for communications and public information activity, which would include exploration of various platforms to reach wider audiences both within and outside of the borough.

OTHER OPTIONS OR ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

To do nothing would result in the funding not benefiting Boston’s communities and businesses.  The reputation of Boston Borough Council not delivering the proposals as submitted would be detrimental to our relationship with the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Any delay to the financial profile and timeline indicated in our proposal would have a negative impact on the effectiveness of the projects and may impact on the drawdown of the fund allocation to Boston Borough Council.

RECORD OF ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None.

RECORD OF ANY DISPENSATION GRANTED

None.