Decision details
Second Homes Funding 2012 - 2013
Decision Maker: Cabinet
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: Yes
Is subject to call in?: Yes
Purpose:
To seek members views on the use of Second
Homes funding for 2012 - 2013
Decisions:
(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)
Cabinet received a report from the Head of Community Engagement to seek members’ views on the use of Second Homes funding for 2012 – 2013.
The options, options analysis, including risk assessment and officer preferred option, were set out in the report as follows:
|
|
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
Risks |
|
Option 1 Funding to secure support core services and facilities for wider group of organisations (Infrastructure) |
A significant multiplier effect with benefits for many organisations
Efficiencies achieved by providing some support services centrally
Reduces reliance on other external funds for a period of time
|
Infrastructure costs are ongoing and SH funds are limited to the amounts available in the current year |
Current infrastructure arrangements significantly at risk following funding cuts |
|
Option 2 Investment in premises and accommodation |
Potential to reduce management costs of small organisations
Supports more collaboration between organisations
Achieves a one off investment for a longer term return |
Match funding may be required for a capital scheme |
Need has been identified in the district but other potential solutions also need to be considered and these are still emerging |
|
Option 3 Investment in volunteering co-ordination arrangements |
Economic contribution of volunteering is significant
Protection of important services by increasing levels and quality of volunteering in the district
Opportunities for skills development for volunteers
Supports better engagement of communities in their local areas
|
Sustainability model needs to be developed but potentially there may be some costs that are unrecoverable |
Volunteer bureau now closed and no current co-ordination arrangement of this type – likely to have a negative impact on levels and services supported by volunteering |
|
Option 4 Investment in small grants via existing schemes |
Positive impact from existing schemes suggest these grants are useful
Low administration costs |
Current schemes funded for 2012 -13 and any further investment would roll into 2013 -14 but requires county council agreement
|
Expectations around the future of schemes need to be managed |
|
Option 5 Investment in limited number of larger grants to achieve long term benefits |
Potential to achieve impacts that may not occur otherwise
Longer term legacy achieved and improved sustainability of operations and services
Promotes collaboration between partners
|
Management arrangements required within the council |
Innovative projects may carry some risk but appraisal processes should identify this. |
|
Option 6 A combination of the above options |
Could present an opportunity to provide benefit widely across VCF and arts sectors |
May dilute the impact of funding and make it more difficult to achieve higher impact from a limited number of investments
|
Risk would be relevant to the preferred options |
A preferred option was not recommended as officers were aware that whilst any of the identified options were helpful, there were significant issues and opportunities facing these sectors and the Second Homes funding available was insufficient to address all of these concerns. Cabinet’s views were sought on the use of the funds available.
The availability of Second Homes funding had now been informally confirmed by Lancashire County Council and as a result of early discussions it had been agreed that these funds could be used to support the council’s investment in the VCF and arts sectors. Cabinet members were being asked to determine which option or combination of options was their preferred approach for the use of the current financial year’s allocation of Second Homes funding. A further report giving detailed proposals in line with members suggested approach would be brought back to Cabinet for approval.
Councillor Barry proposed, seconded by Councillor Leytham:-
“(1) That Cabinet notes the availability of Second Homes funding of approximately £290,000 for 2012 -13.
(2) That Cabinet supports Option 6, a combination of options 1-5 in the report, to address issues and develop opportunities for the Voluntary, Community and Faith and the Arts sector.
(3) That a further report be brought back to Cabinet setting out detailed proposals for the use of this fund.”
Councillors then voted:-
Resolved unanimously:
“(1) That Cabinet notes the availability of Second Homes funding of approximately £290,000 for 2012 -13.
(2) That Cabinet supports Option 6, a combination of options 1-5 in the report, to address issues and develop opportunities for the Voluntary, Community and Faith and the Arts sector.
(3) That a further report be brought back to Cabinet setting out detailed proposals for the use of this fund.”
Officers responsible for effecting the decision:
Head of Community Engagement
Head of Financial Services
Reasons for making the decision:
The decision is consistent with the Priorities, Outcomes, success Measures and Actions identified in the Corporate Plan 2012-15 with regard to the use of the available Second Homes Funding and enables detailed proposals to be brought back to Cabinet in due course.
Report author: Richard Tulej
Publication date: 06/06/2012
Date of decision: 29/05/2012
Decided at meeting: 29/05/2012 - Cabinet
Effective from: 13/06/2012
Accompanying Documents:
PDF 85 KB