Agenda item
South Kesteven Prosperity Fund Applications
- Meeting of UK Shared Prosperity Fund and Rural England Prosperity Fund Board, Wednesday, 30th October, 2024 10.00 am, NEW (Item 31.)
- Share this item
1. SKMP35 – Commercial Property Review
2. SKMP29 – Shopwatch/Pubwatch
3. SK98 – Table Tennis
Minutes:
SKMP35 – South Kesteven District Council
Funding requested: £52,500
The Head of Economic Development and Inward Investment spoke about the project which proposed to assess the demand for commercial spaces both office and industrial within South Kesteven focusing on Grantham, Bourne, Stamford and Market Deeping and other key areas in the district. The project would evaluate the current and proposed supply of commercial premises analysing their type, size, quality and age. Based on this supply and demand analysis the project would identify specific quantitative and qualitative needs both district-wide and for individual settlements. It would also determine the causes of any undersupply and explore options to address barriers promoting development to meet identified commercial needs effectively. Discussion followed and the Assistant Director of Planning stated that the project would provide evidence that could be used in respect of planning decisions.
(10:49 – 10:55 the Head of Economic Development left the meeting whilst the Board deliberated this funding request)
The Board were minded to support the funding request, subject to funds being available, as it was felt that having that type of information held centrally would be a valuable asset in helping businesses across the district and that it needed to be widely marketed/advertised/promoted that the information was held by the Council.
SKMP29 – South Kesteven District Council
Funding requested: £40,363.92
The funding request was for a project to extend the existing Shopwatch/Pubwatch scheme which currently operated in Grantham to the towns of Bourne, Stamford and the Deepings. The Council had been successful in a Safer Streets bid last year via the Home Office through the Police and Crime Commissioner which provided funding to get a radio hub set up in Grantham. The funding would allow the Council to purchase radios and the initial licence fees to benefit the towns for the first year. Discussion on the funding request followed with comments being made in respect of the current system in Grantham which it was felt was better within the shops rather than the public houses and how the project would be funded after the first year. It was stated that the project was linked to CCTV, however some Members felt that this wasn’t always an advantage as not every town had a large number of cameras and Market Deeping was given as an example. Although Members felt that it was a good idea especially as shop lifting appeared to be on the rise, it would only be as good as the equipment provided and the take up by shops and public houses.
SK98 – SKDC Table Tennis
Funding requested: £29,186
The funding project was in respect of the installation of at least four outdoor table tennis tables across South Kesteven at locations in Bourne, Stamford, Deeping St James and Grantham. The aim of the project was to encourage the use and engagement of local green spaces for physical activity. Members discussed the funding project but felt that it was not an “outdoor” sport and other sport equipment could be more beneficial. Members were not supporting of the application for funding.
The Head of Economic Development and Inward Investment then gave a breakdown of the funding still available under the following headings:
Main Fund
Interventions
Communities and Place: £103,187
Supporting Local Business: £270,000
People and Skills: £26,000
Rural Fund £103,402
A question was asked about when the funding needed to be spent by and whether items that were on order but not received before the deadline were classed as spent. The Head of Economic Development and Inward Investment stated that the deadline for funds to be spent was 31 March 2025 and that items on order were classed as “spent” funds, 30% of the funding could be moved between interventions. Officers would also have to reconcile funding requests against both capital and revenue budget allocations.
The Head of Economic Development and Inward Investment then briefly outlined funding requests that were in the pipeline and would be coming to the next meeting in November and that not all funding requests would be able to be endorsed although funding requests were still be encouraged at the present time, although this was something that the Board would need to discuss in November.
Each of the remaining six funding applications that had been discussed were then individually voted on (funding for Claypole Village Store had already been endorsed).
SKMP16 – National Trust (Belton Estate)
Funding requested: £105,000
Change of Funding request from revenue to Capital was ENDORSED subject to clarity around the use of the Hub (whole of SK or specific to Grantham) and how long it could be used for free (timescale).
RF-1031 – Treescape Nursery
Funding requested: £55,000
Funding request proposed, seconded and ENDORSED.
RF-1027 – The Side House Coffee Shop
Funding requested: £10,000
The Board expressed concern about whether the correct permissions and licences were being sought and therefore it was proposed and seconded that the funding application be DEFERRED for clarity around the necessary permissions/licences.
SKMP35 – South Kesteven District Council
Funding requested: £52,500
Funding request unanimously ENDORSED.
SKMP29 – South Kesteven District Council
Funding requested: £40,363.92
It was proposed and seconded that the funding request be DEFERRED to seek further information on the interest uptake of the scheme within the towns.
SK98 – SKDC Table Tennis
Funding requested: £29,186
It was proposed, seconded and agreed to REJECT the funding application.
Supporting documents:
- Restricted enclosure
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 31./2 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 31./3 is restricted
- Restricted enclosure View the reasons why document 31./4 is restricted