Decision Maker:

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Date of Decision: April 3, 2025

Purpose:

Content: 10.1 The Committee considered a report of the Director, Economic Development, Skills and Culture which provided an update on the delivery of round 2 of the Economic Recovery Fund. The report also set out the plan for closing down the Fund, presented the evaluation report undertaken to assess the impact of the Fund and outlined a proposal to create an ongoing legacy.     10.2 RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: That the Economic Development and Skills Policy Committee:   a)    Notes the delivery update on the second round of the Economic Recovery Fund and plan for closing the programme down b)    Notes the findings of the independent evaluation of the Economy Recovery Fund Round 2 c)    Notes the approval from the Finance and Performance Policy Committee to transfer unspent project funds (c. £60k) from Newfield Green/Gaunt Precinct to the Gleadless Valley Regeneration Team d)    Notes that a proposal to utilise the ERF programme underspend, in support of creating an ongoing legacy, will be developed for final decision by the Finance and Performance Policy Committee     10.3 Reasons for Decision     10.3.1 Building on and nurturing firm foundations: ERF has created the foundations for future work through creating new relationships, strengthening and deepening existing relationships, creating new expectations and uncovering an appetite for improving local high streets. This work, having taken place across four years, two rounds of funding and 49 projects has planted a seed in many of the areas that have been part of the process. Steering Group have emphasised throughout that they are keen to see a legacy come from this work and investment. A gap in capacity and contact with these groups would, it is argued, miss the opportunity to create a longer-term legacy for ERF.     10.3.2 Avoiding a cliff edge: It has been highlighted as a risk that a short-term programme like ERF can build momentum and engagement, only for this to fall away as the programme ends. This was a barrier to engaging and working with the Council in some areas, because of cynicism of this scenario occurring. Planning for a legacy for ERF will help mitigate this risk and put in place a clear, ongoing route for high streets to engage on place-making ideas.     10.3.3 Bridging two key milestones: As the ERF Programme ends and the Community Strategy Review begins, providing interim capacity and resource would enable those relationships to become rooted and allow for further work to be developed in the future, supported by LACs/other pots of funding. It would also allow LACs to test and iterate their role and approach to working with high streets whilst the scope of their work is being reviewed. 10.3.4 Latent appetite: Whilst the Economic Recovery Fund was created in response to the Covid-19 pandemic and was designed as a short-term intervention, what the programme has uncovered is a latent appetite (and support for) in many areas of the city for: high street improvements alongside direct involvement in the development and delivery of local interventions. Whilst capacity and commitment differs across area and the right model for working in each area is not a one-size-fits-all, there is demonstrable desire across the city to see local change centres in and around high streets and specifically for business (as well as community) benefit.     10.3.5 Learning from what works: We have learned that there is no substitute for paid, in-person capacity working with high street businesses and community groups. Furthermore, whilst we have learned that capacity is key, funding also acts as a catalyst. It brings people together with a sense of purpose, helps empower and engage and enables real, tangible changes to be made that are led locally. Some of the activities delivered by ERF are easily repeatable, particularly with the benefit of experience and the Resource Library/Toolkit as guides. Much of the activity is also low cost in and of itself (streetscene improvements, low-key events and trails). We know through feedback that there is in several areas an appetite to continue working as a team for the benefit of the local high street. The Council has the opportunity to sustain and build om this energy and appetite where it exists in support of local neighbourhood economies and businesses, which in turn benefits communities.     10.4 Alternatives Considered and Rejected     10.4.1 Funding Business Information Officers (BIOs) for a further year No longer required, a budget has now been secured to fund BIOs for a further 12 months; officers working on a longer-term approach. BIOs offer vital 1-1 business support, but this is different to the wider, place-based and collaborative approach ERF has taken     10.4.2 Reserving any funds to make savings Reallocating funding away from original purpose (high street support/business benefit) unlikely to be supported. It also misses the opportunity to build on ERF foundations; reputational risk of short-term only support – would make future attempts at engagement harder if there’s a gap/cliff-edge     10.4.3 Reserving funds to use in furtherance of any future round of funding Confirmation received that there will be no future rounds of funding, so not required.