Agenda item

Levelling Up Fund-Update

Report of the Executive Director- City Futures

Decision:

11.1

The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director-City Futures, that provided a progress update on the successful Round 1 Levelling Up Fund bids and a summary of the as yet undecided Round 2 Levelling Up Fund Submissions

 

In addition, the report recommended the acceptance of the recommendations of the recent “Live Works” coproduction workshops for the Gateway to Sheffield Levelling Up Fund activity.

 

 

11.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee:-

 

 

a)    Notes the positive progress made on the LUF Round 1 projects Gateway to Sheffield and Attercliffe;

 

b)    Notes the submission of two bids to the LUF round 2 and request a further report is brought to this committee once the outcome is known;

 

c)    Approve the implementation of 13 recommendations of the Live Works workshop, subject to the availability of funding;

 

d)    Defers the decision to note that the resources identified in the Gateway to Sheffield LUF bid for the creation of development plots will be used in the first instance to make good two buildings on the Castle Site;

 

e)    Defers the decision to note the exempt appendix 2 and authorise Officers to seek approval from the Department for Levelling Up Homes and Communities to relocate an element of the project to the Castle Site;

 

f)      That officers seek clarification of agreement in principle from the Department of Levelling Up, as to whether they would approve the relocation element of the project (Castle Site), subject to any relevant DLUHC change process and approval by committee at a subsequent meeting;

 

g)    Requests that the Castlegate Members Working Group is reconvened, and the first meeting of that group is before the 20th December 2022.

 

 

11.3

Reasons for Decision

 

 

11.3.1

The recommendations recognise the work done so far in discussion with a wide range of stakeholders and the public and allows for these views to be used to inform the design of the Castle Site.

 

 

 

11.3.2

Furthermore, the recommendations enable best use of the resources identified for development plots within the LUF funding allocation, ensure all project outputs are delivered and that LUF investment in the Castle Site is enhanced.

 

 

 

11.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

 

 

11.4.1

If the Council decided not to include the two buildings as development plots there is a risk that they would be left to deteriorate further and become an increasing blight on the Castle Site and Exchange Street.  The funding would continue to be used to bring forward other development plots within the Castle Site.

 

 

 

11.4.2

Whilst there is no more funding available from DLUHC, one consideration would be to ask DHLUC to vire more of the funds allocated to the Gateway to Sheffield Project to do more than undertake initial repair of the buildings.  However, this would be detrimental to other elements and outputs for the project. Additional applications for funding could be made but these would take time to secure and may jeopardise delivery of LUF scheme, project and outputs.

 

 

 

11.4.3

The proposals in the report are considered to be the minimum required to ensure that the Gateway to Sheffield project can deliver the best outputs for the funding awarded

 

 

Minutes:

8.1

The Committee considered a report of the Executive Director-City Futures, that provided a progress update on the successful Round 1 Levelling Up Fund bids and a summary of the as yet undecided Round 2 Levelling Up Fund Submissions

 

In addition, the report recommended the acceptance of the recommendations of the recent “Live Works” coproduction workshops for the Gateway to Sheffield Levelling Up Fund activity.

 

An on-screen presentation was given which showed members the visuals of both the Attercliffe and Castlegate projects. Tammy Whittaker, Head of Property Services advised that a number of thr projects were dependent on match funding some of which was yet to be approved.

 

Following members questions the key points noted were:

 

Members did not feel comfortable to agree to recommendation d) and e) of the report without further briefing.

 

The Head of Property Services advised the committee that the proposal was to incorporate two additional buildings on the Castle Site as development plots.  The budget for the Castle Site would not change.  No funding was being moved from the de-culverting or heritage works to accommodate the buildings.  If approved funding would be used from the existing development plots budget line.  The Chair confirmed that there was to be no deviation from the de-culverting work and no impact on the public realm funding.

 

Members asked for assurances that if people had to move out of the buildings would they be moved within a similar location.  It was confirmed it would be within the area.

 

It was advised that if the two building were not part of this plan, then they would not be developed.  At the present time one building was in a poor state of repair and the other needed work on it to ensure it remained in use.

 

8.2

RESOLVED: That the public and press be excluded from the meeting before discussion takes place on the part 2 report of this item on the agenda on the grounds that, if the public and press were present during the transaction of such business, there would be a disclosure to them of exempt information as described in paragraphs 3 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, as amended.

 

 

8.3

The meeting was re-opened to the press and public.

 

 

8.4

Councillor Craig Gamble-Pugh put forward a recommendation –

 

That officers seek clarification of agreement in principle from the Department of Levelling Up, as to whether they would approve the relocation element of the project (Castle Site), subject to the committee then approving it at a subsequent meeting;

 

This recommendation was seconded by Councillor Christine Gilligan-Kubo.

 

All members voted in favour of the recommendation.

 

 

 

8.5

Councillor Andrew Sangar put forward a recommendation –

 

Requests that the Castlegate Members Working Group is reconvened, and the first meeting of that group is before the 20th December 2022.

 

This recommendation was seconded by Councillor Dianne Hurst.

 

All members voted in favour of the recommendation.

 

 

8.6

Recommendation a), b) and c) were agreed unanimously.

 

Recommendations d) and e). All members voted in favour of deferring both recommendation d) and e).

 

 

8.2

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Transport, Regeneration and Climate Policy Committee:-

 

 

a)    Notes the positive progress made on the LUF Round 1 projects Gateway to Sheffield and Attercliffe;

 

b)    Notes the submission of two bids to the LUF round 2 and request a further report is brought to this committee once the outcome is known;

 

c)    Approve the implementation of 13 recommendations of the Live Works workshop, subject to the availability of funding;

 

d)    Defers the decision to note that the resources identified in the Gateway to Sheffield LUF bid for the creation of development plots will be used in the first instance to make good two buildings on the Castle Site;

 

e)    Defers the decision to note the exempt appendix 2 and authorise Officers to seek approval from the Department for Levelling Up Homes and Communities to relocate an element of the project to the Castle Site;

 

f)      That officers seek clarification of agreement in principle from the Department of Levelling Up, as to whether they would approve the relocation element of the project (Castle Site), subject to the committee then approving it at a subsequent meeting;

 

g)    Requests that the Castlegate Members Working Group is reconvened, and the first meeting of that group is before the 20th December 2022.

 

 

8.3

Reasons for Decision

 

 

8.3.1

The recommendations recognise the work done so far in discussion with  a wide range of stakeholders and the public and allows for these views to be used to inform the design of the Castle Site.

 

 

 

8.3.2

Furthermore the recommendations enable best use of the resources identified for development plots within  the LUF funding allocation, ensure all project outputs are delivered and that LUF investment in the Castle Site is enhanced.

 

 

 

8.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

 

 

 

 

8.4.1

If the Council decided not to include the two buildings as development plots there is a risk that they would be left to deteriorate further and become an increasing blight on the Castle Site and Exchange Street.  The funding would continue to be used to bring forward other development plots within the Castle Site.

 

 

 

8.4.2

Whilst there is no more funding available from DLUHC, one consideration would be to ask DHLUC to vire more of the funds allocated to the Gateway to Sheffield Project to do more than undertake initial repair of the buildings.  However, this would not deliver all of the outputs for the project and therefore was unlikely to be acceptable.  Additional applications for funding could be made but these would take time to secure and may jeopardise delivery of LUF scheme, project and outputs.

 

 

 

8.4.3

The proposals in the report are considered to be the minimum required to ensure that the Gateway to Sheffield project can deliver the best outputs for the funding awarded

 

 

Supporting documents: