Skip to content

Agenda item

UK Shared Prosperity Fund

Report of the Executive Director, City Futures

Decision:

11.1

The report provides the Economic Development and Skills Policy Committee with an update of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) announced by Government in April 2022 and identifies several issues that are developing through the process to develop an SPF Investment Plan for South Yorkshire.

 

The report also identifies several projects currently funded by European Structural Investment Funds (ESIF) that will be coming to an end over the next twelve to eighteen months and how they might benefit from SPF funding in the future.

 

 

11.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Economic Development and Skills Policy Committee Policy Committee notes the report and supports:-

 

1. the Council promoting the engagement of key City organisations in the consultation process associated with the development of the Shared Prosperity Fund Investment Plan;

 

2. the development of potential Shared Prosperity Fund projects and activity that might benefit support from Year 1 funding; and

 

3. the undertaking of internal evaluations of existing EU Funded projects to determine whether they would benefit from Shared Prosperity Fund support in the future, either continuing in their current form, being adapted to improve performance or ended.

 

 

11.3

Reasons for Decision

 

 

11.3.1

The Committee is asked to note the report for information so that it can consider future recommendations with a better understanding of the strategic and external funding context.

 

 

11.3.2

The engagement of key organisations in the development of the SPF Investment Plan is considered essential to ensure there is full ‘buy in’ to a plan that has ‘Place’ as one of main categories of intervention.

 

 

11.3.3

That the Council is well placed to quickly respond to Year One Call for Proposals published by SYMCA to maximum SPF impact for the benefit of Sheffield residents and businesses.

 

 

11.3.4

An internal evaluation of current and recent EU funded projects will determine whether future funding bids should be developed for their continuation or whether alternative routes are required to deliver the same or alternative benefits. The outcome of the evaluation will also inform potential HR implications that will result from external funding ending.

 

 

11.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

11.4.1

In respect to the SPF activity ultimately it will be the SYMCA that submits the Investment Plan based on the advice provided to it from local partners. There will be options to consider in respect to the contents of this Plan which SYMCA will need to determine.

 

 

11.4.2

As such the Council has two options:

Option 1: It can fully engage with the SPF development process being undertaken by SYMCA and use its influence to ensure the Investment Plan reflects the needs of the City.

Option 2: It can choose not to engage with the SPF development process which might mean the Investment Plan does not address the economic and social needs of the City.

Option 1 is considered the preferred option.

 

 

 

Minutes:

10.1

The report provides the Economic Development and Skills Policy Committee with an update of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) announced by Government in April 2022 and identifies several issues that are developing through the process to develop an SPF Investment Plan for South Yorkshire.

 

The report also identifies several projects currently funded by European Structural Investment Funds (ESIF) that will be coming to an end over the next twelve to eighteen months and how they might benefit from SPF funding in the future.

 

 

10.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Economic Development and Skills Policy Committee Policy Committee notes the report and supports:-

 

1. the Council promoting the engagement of key City organisations in the consultation process associated with the development of the Shared Prosperity Fund Investment Plan;

 

2. the development of potential Shared Prosperity Fund projects and activity that might benefit support from Year 1 funding; and

 

3. the undertaking of internal evaluations of existing EU Funded projects to determine whether they would benefit from Shared Prosperity Fund support in the future, either continuing in their current form, being adapted to improve performance or ended.

 

 

10.3

Reasons for Decision

 

 

10.3.1

The Committee is asked to note the report for information so that it can consider future recommendations with a better understanding of the strategic and external funding context.

 

 

10.3.2

The engagement of key organisations in the development of the SPF Investment Plan is considered essential to ensure there is full ‘buy in’ to a plan that has ‘Place’ as one of main categories of intervention.

 

 

10.3.3

That the Council is well placed to quickly respond to Year One Call for Proposals published by SYMCA to maximum SPF impact for the benefit of Sheffield residents and businesses.

 

 

10.3.4

An internal evaluation of current and recent EU funded projects will determine whether future funding bids should be developed for their continuation or whether alternative routes are required to deliver the same or alternative benefits. The outcome of the evaluation will also inform potential HR implications that will result from external funding ending.

 

 

10.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

10.4.1

In respect to the SPF activity ultimately it will be the SYMCA that submits the Investment Plan based on the advice provided to it from local partners. There will be options to consider in respect to the contents of this Plan which SYMCA will need to determine.

 

 

10.4.2

As such the Council has two options:

Option 1: It can fully engage with the SPF development process being undertaken by SYMCA and use its influence to ensure the Investment Plan reflects the needs of the City.

Option 2: It can choose not to engage with the SPF development process which might mean the Investment Plan does not address the economic and social needs of the City.

Option 1 is considered the preferred option.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: