Issue - meetings
Galgate Community Rooms
Meeting: 22/01/2008 - Cabinet (Item 102)
102 Galgate Community Rooms 
PDF 26 KB
(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Tony Johnson)
Report of the Head of Economic Development and Tourism.
Additional documents:
Minutes:
(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Tony Johnson)
The Head of Economic Development and Tourism submitted a report that advised that Ellel Parish Council had requested short term, repayable financial assistance pending receipt of Pathfinder in Practice funding towards the development of Community Rooms in Galgate. The report outlined the background to the request, noted the potential joint arrangement with Lancashire Economic Partnership and raised the implications of funding such requests.
The options, options analysis, including risk assessment, were set out in the report as follows:
|
Option |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
Risks |
|||
|
1. Refuse the request to provide short term finance |
Avoids setting precedent for similar requests |
Substantial external funding for community project not taken up
City Council perceived as unsupportive |
No financial risk to the City Council
Project potentially put at risk as unable to bridge period pending receipt of PiP funding |
|||
|
2. Provide short term repayable funding, jointly with LEP, against contractor invoices and charge interest of approx £900-1000 |
Project able to proceed as planned.
City Council perceived as supportive of rural community projects
No financial loss to the City Council when loan repaid in full |
Increases overall project costs to the Parish Council
Depending on LEP approach, there may be a mismatch in the handling of interest on the loan |
Whilst the offer of PiP funding has been secured, payment will be subject to the project meeting the terms and conditions set by the funder. It is conceivable that payment of PiP grant could be withheld and repayment to the City Council delayed.
Risk of setting precedent |
|||
|
3. Provide short term repayable funding, jointly with LEP, against contractor invoices and forego interest of approx £900-1000 |
Project able to proceed as planned
City Council perceived as supportive of rural community projects
|
Loss of interest on the funding provided |
Whilst the offer of PiP funding has been secured, payment will be subject to the project meeting the terms and conditions set by the funder. It is conceivable that payment of PiP grant could be withheld and repayment to the City Council delayed.
Risk of setting precedent |
|||
|
4. Approach Lancashire County Council with a view to the required finance being met equally with LEP and the City Council |
Potential to reduce the commitment of resources and risk for the City Council |
LEP initially approached the County Council which indicated that it would not be able to provide support from the Rural Development Budget (the most appropriate budget) in the current financial year. The timescale required for any further approaches and consideration by the County Council probably dictates against this option being taken forward. |
Risk of delay in confirming the availability of short term funding on a tripartite basis |
|||
The preferred officer option was option 3. If Members wished to support the request for short term finance, it should be noted that Lancashire Economic Partnership do not generally charge interest on the finance provided. If this is LEP’s confirmed approach in this instance, Members may wish to adopt a consistent approach ie Option ... view the full minutes text for item 102