Agenda item

Option 1: Retain the DCLG funding and approve the framework and policy to allocate the Community Housing Fund and implement accordingly, and use the £29,645 to increase officer resources in the Planning Policy Team

Option 2: Do not approve the framework and policy set out in the report and either request officers to develop an alternative or hand the grant back to DCLG (if required)

Advantages

The proposed governance framework will allow the timely allocation of funding to investigate and bring community led developments into fruition. 

The approval of a jointly funded officer post will increase the officer resources available to Fylde and Lancaster on a pilot basis and will allow officers to review its effectiveness.

The Grant Policy clearly sets out the circumstances that the council will support projects and how the fund will be allocated, administered and managed.

The additional officer resources in the Planning Policy Team will ensure the Service can respond to the necessary legislative requirements, for a fixed period of time to run alongside whatever DCLG funding is provided and by virtue of extending the hours of two existing officer posts only.

The DCLG funding allocations are non ring-fenced grants and were direct awards not subject to a bid process. 

There will be no officer resources required to implement and manage the Community Housing Fund.

Disadvantages

The level of funding allocated will only provide a relatively small element of funding with pre-determined thresholds within the grant policy, which will require community groups to identify and pursue other forms of funding.

There would be a loss of opportunity to support potential projects that would benefit from an allocation of the Community Housing Fund, including the provision of affordable housing and residential schemes that could potentially meet a more diverse or more bespoke need that could directly benefit communities.

If funding is available in future years, there would be limited/no opportunity to secure any further allocation of funding if the council cannot evidence the money has been put to good use and allocated in the way it is intended.

There will still be legislative requirements around the development and maintenance of a Brownfield Register/Self and Custom Build Register

Risks

Given that the proposed jointly funded officer post will be directly employed by Fylde Council, this a more complex arrangement than employing a dedicated officer who is appointed by and reports solely to Lancaster City Council.

Given the nature of the funding and its intended use, the fund could be incurring abortive costs in paying for up-front costs that may not be deliverable or come into fruition for a number of reasons.

Some community groups may require extensive support to bring schemes into fruition and deliver schemes within the required timescales.

It may be difficult for some groups to access the appropriate level of match funding required, much of which would be outside of the council’s control.

If groups do not fulfil their requirements there may be a need to reclaim the funding. 

There is no absolute certainty of how long the DCLG funding is being provided for and could be discontinued.

Reputational damage upon the council if the funding is not utilised as Government intended / or if handed back.

Could weaken relationships between the council and communities including those parishes currently developing Neighbourhood Plans.

No real impact if funding was discontinued.

Non-compliance of legislative requirements could lead to challenge.