To consider whether or not to approve the extension of the grant offer to Alderton Parish Council to allow its project to be delivered.

1.      That, to allow the project to be delivered, the grant offer previously made to Alderton Parish Council be extended until 31 August 2016.

2.      That, should the project not commence by 31 August 2016, the grant offer will be withdrawn and the £35,000 capital balance will be transferred to the Grants Working Group for redistribution.

65.1           The report of the Finance and Asset Management Group Manager, circulated at Pages No. 73-83, set out the situation regarding a grant provided to Alderton Parish Council a number of years ago. Members were asked to consider the situation and approve the extension of the grant offer to Alderton Parish Council until 31 August 2016 to allow the delivery of the project; and, in the event of the project not commencing by 31 August 2016, to approve the transfer of the £35,000 capital balance to the Grants Working Group for redistribution.

65.2           The Finance and Asset Management Group Manager explained that, in November 2000, the Executive Committee had awarded a grant to Alderton Parish Council of £20,250 for the development of a sports pavilion. In November 2004 a further grant of £14,750 had been agreed by the Strategy and Resources Committee which gave a total in grant funding of £35,000 from the Borough Council towards the project. Following the award, the Parish Council had hoped to secure additional funding from other providers and to commence the works in early 2005. The Parish Council had established a Community Trust to take the project forward, and to secure additional funding, and, whilst that Trust had been successfully awarded £10,000 from Entrust, it had struggled to attract the additional financing required. In December 2009, the Executive Committee had formed a Grants Working Group to administer the grants process on behalf of the Council and part of the remit of that Working Group was to review the progress of grants awarded and, if necessary, to withdraw the grant offer if progress was not being made.

65.3           In respect of the current position, the Finance and Asset Management Group Manager explained that, at its meeting in September 2015, the Grants Working Group had considered the latest position of the sports pavilion and, whilst support for the overall project aim remained, it was felt that holding the grant available for nearly 11 years, and nearly 15 years in the case of the original grant, was more than sufficient to allow the project to be delivered. With this in mind the Working Group had felt that the current grant offer should be withdrawn and the Parish Council encouraged to reapply when it was in a position to deliver the project. Whilst the Working Group had authority within the Scheme to withdraw grants that it had awarded this did not extend to grants that were awarded prior to its commencement. The Alderton grant clearly pre-dated the existence of the Working Group and therefore the matter was referred to the Executive Committee for a decision. Further information had been provided by the Parish Council, which was now proposing a smaller project, and this had been attached to the report for information at Appendix A. The availability of Section 106 funding to support the project had now greatly changed the likelihood of the project being delivered; with over £50,000 being available following recent development in the village. There now appeared to be a renewed impetus behind the group formed to deliver the project which would, when delivered, provide a much needed recreational facility within the village. With this in mind, Officers had gone back to the Grants Working Group and it had been felt that the grant offer should be extended to 31 August 2016 to allow the works to commence. If the works had not commenced by that date then the grant would be withdrawn and returned to the grants balances for redistribution.

65.4           During the brief discussion which ensued, a Member expressed a hope that the Committee would support the recommendation on the paper. He explained that there were many problems for smaller communities in trying to get a project like this up and running. The big issue in this case was that the Council had provided a grant and following that Alderton had applied to Sport England which had been where the real problems had begun. Sport England had wanted to see something much grander than the Parish really required and had insisted on a scheme like that being developed before it would offer a grant. Sport England now seemed to understand a ‘one size fits all’ approach was not appropriate in all cases and the village was able to build the pavilion it wanted. There was a team in place now which was dedicated to building the pavilion and he hoped Members could support them in their efforts as this really was a facility that was very much needed in the area. Another Member agreed that he would like to see the project going forward. He understood that it had been a long time in the making but it had been beset by difficulties and he felt that, to allow it to move forward, would justify the original decision which had been made many years ago. He was encouraged to see mention of the Grants Officer who he felt had been doing excellent work since the creation of her post.

65.5           Having considered the information provided, it was