Issue - meetings

Second Homes Funding 2012 - 2013

Meeting: 29/05/2012 - Cabinet (Item 8)

8 Second Homes Funding 2012 - 2013 pdf icon PDF 85 KB

(Cabinet Member with Special Responsibility Councillor Blamire)

 

Report of the Head of Community Engagement

Minutes:

(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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8