Issue - meetings

Report seeking approval for revisions to the Parish and Community Initiative Fund and for an additional Developing Communities Fund.

A report was received which proposed revisions to the Parish and Community Initiative Fund (PCIF) and proposed a new Developing Communities Fund. In response to a member’s question, it was confirmed that the Developing Communities Fund would be available for all parishes, but not for the unparished town of Hinckley. The initiative relating to support for Neighbourhood Development Plans was welcomed and it was noted that this would support all parishes and communities within the borough.

Some members expressed concern that it would not be available for projects in the Hinckley wards which, they felt, was unfair as Hinckley residents were contributing to it via their payments to the green waste service. In response, it was noted that the majority of income for the green waste service was coming from the rural areas, and members were reminded that the high take up of the service had resulted in a surplus which, was a positive development. A member suggested that the report should reflect that the funding for the Developing Communities Fund did not come solely from the additional income from the garden waste scheme. The following amendment was proposed by Councillor Bray and seconded by Councillor Bill:

“In order to ensure opportunities for all the communities in the borough, and not just for those in rural area, as everyone is facing developments in one form or another, I propose that recommendation 2.1(ii) be amended as follows: delete the words ‘available for parishes and communities on the bases set out in appendix B’ and replace with ‘to be available for all parishes and communities across the borough’”.

Councillor Hall, along with four other councillors, requested that voting on this motion be recorded. The vote was taken as follows:

Councillors Bill, Bray, Cartwright, Mr Cope, Mrs Cope, Crooks, Hodgkins, Hollick, Lynch, Taylor and Witherford voted FOR the amendment (11);

Councillors Bessant, Boothby, Camamile, Cook, Hall, Kirby, Ladkin, Morrell, Nickerson, O’Shea, Richards, Roberts, Rooney, Smith, Surtees, Sutton, Wallace, Ward, Williams and Wright voted AGAINST the amendment (20);

Councillors Allen and Lay abstained from voting.

The motion was declared LOST.

It was moved by Councillor Morrell and seconded by Councillor Ladkin that the recommendation contained within the report be approved. Councillor Hall, along with four other councillors, requested that voting on the motion be recorded. The vote was taken as follows:

Councillors Bessant, Bill, Boothby, Bray, Camamile, Cartwright, Cook, Mr Cope, Mrs Cope, Crooks, Hall, Hodgkins, Hollick, Kirby, Ladkin, Lay, Lynch, Morrell, Nickerson, Richards, Roberts, Rooney, Smith, Surtees, Sutton, Taylor, Wallace, Ward, Williams, Witherford and Wright voted FOR the motion (31);

There were no votes AGAINST the motion (0);

Councillors Allen and O’Shea abstained from voting.

The motion was CARRIED and it was

RESOLVED –

(i)            The revised criteria and arrangements for the Parish & Community Initiative Fund be approved;

(ii)           The details for the additional Developing Communities Fund be approved;

(iii)          Parishes and communities be engaged and encouraged to bring forward Neighbourhood Development Plans and associated outline applications for Developing Communities Funding by 9  ...  view the full minutes text for item 162

To seek support for recommendations to Council regarding revision of the Parish & Community Initiative Fund and an additional fund available to larger parishes.

The covering report and appendix B have been amended.

A report which recommended revisions to the Parish and Community Initiative Fund (PCIF) and creation of a new Developing Communities Fund was presented to members. The report and proposals were welcomed.

In relation to the PCIF, concern was expressed about inviting schools to bid for funding and it was emphasised that the decision to consider them only if funding remained after all other bids had been considered must be enforced, or that they should only be invited to bid if there was funding after the first tranche of bids had been considered. Following discussion, it was agreed that the latter would be proposed as a recommendation.

Members also asked whether the PCIF would be available for projects in Hinckley, and in response it was noted that it would, and that match funding would need to be provided from the special expenses area budget.

RESOLVED –

(i)            The report be welcomed and proposals be endorsed;

(ii)           Council be RECOMMENDED to agree to only invite schools to submit a bid to the PCIF if there was funding remaining after all bids had been considered.