Minutes 6 August 2021

1. Welcome and apologies

Present:

• Leigh Watton (Chair)
• Councillor Matt Dormer
• David Mitchell
• Gary Woodman
• John Hobbs
• James Howse
• Julia Breakwell
• Laetitia Lucy
• Kevin Dicks
• Lyndsey Berry
• Ostap Paperega
• Pete Sugg
• Shanazz Carroll
• Simon Hyde
• Penny Unwin

Apologies:

• Ruth Bamford
• Adam Freeth
• Simon Geraghty
• Annette Daley

2. Notes of previous meeting

Previous meeting minutes agreed.

3. Introduction to the project re-prioritisation process, reminder of local needs/baseline, vision and four objectives

Overview of projects

Laetitia introduced herself and together with Lyndsey made presentation (see copy).

3. Options Paper and Review of project prioritisation tool results

Ostap referred to agenda paper C and that what is prioritised must meet the needs of the town.

The Chair Leigh said the Digital / Public Realm projects scored highly and sought views. Councillor Dormer said removal of library joins it all together improving flow, vibrancy, sustainability making it a good public realm space and area for events enhancing whole area - so proposed Option 1.

There is contingency on costs given discussion at the previous meeting and will be part of the next stage of business case development.

Discussion about the railway project, and concern at not doing this and other funding options to do this. Matt said a meeting with West Midlands Combined Authority Mayor is being arranged to discuss this; that it is important and maybe option of how public realm and railway integrates.

Kevin said nothing is being binned, it is imperative the railway station is undertaken. This is about reprioritising schemes within the Towns Deal current funding. The previous meeting had stressed that other funding will be sought to meet projects that can’t go ahead now. Kevin seconded Option 1.

Letty said it is good there are different options on the table. She reiterated Kevin’s comment above and supported Option 1. That there should be programmes to provide other schemes later on but this is what we can do now / next three years; and in so doing attract future investment for (example) the train station redevelopment.

Assurance framework is delegated to Redditch Borough Council and that will be final check through which projects in option 1 will make sure they remain viable, achievable, realistic and affordable – for which James will be responsible.

John Hobbs asked is there any aspect of gateway project to save into the public realm project.

4. Chaired discussion on results

5. Vote on final projects

Vote taken to move forward on option 1:

For

• David Mitchell
• Simon Hyde
• Shanazz Carroll
• Pete Sugg
• Councillor Matt Dormer
• Gary Woodman
• Leigh Watton

Against

None

Option 1 was therefore approved.

6. Date of next meeting

To be confirmed

Options Paper

Project re-prioritisation options

1. At the Board meeting on 16 July, the Board has approved the two-phased project re-prioritisation approach, as set out in the Parameters paper:

• Phase 1: agreed parameters – approved projects should not lead to increased risk (financial; delivery and reputational) for the accountable body (Redditch BC); top slicing should be avoided; additional third party contributions / other sources of funding should not be taken into account unless approved in writing prior to the Board meeting on 13 August. The fourth ‘scale back’ parameter had been incorporated in the re-prioritisation tool already.
• Phase 2: use of the Towns Fund Delivery Partner’s project re-prioritisation tool to select the projects to be taken forward for delivery.

2. Following the Board meeting on 16 July, all project promoters were asked to complete the re-prioritisation tool, which resulted in the following ranking (Table 1). The completed re-prioritisation tool has been attached as Appendix .

Total ask: £25 million

3. All projects have retained their original budgets, so in that respect, there is no change to the original grant ask. This poses further challenges in terms of selecting the projects that can be delivered within the £15.6m budget envelope.
4. Table 2 lists the projects by their original ranking, as selected by the Board to be included in the TIP. The Board chose these projects on the basis of their spatial focus on the town centre.

Total ask: £25 million

Re-prioritisation

5. For consistency sake, if the same selection method was adopted – spatial focus on the town centre – then the Board needs to decide which of the three projects that scored 19 points each (Table 1) would complement the first and second ranked projects to maximise the spatial impact on the town centre.
6. In making the final decision, the Board:

• must demonstrate how the re-prioritisation process meets the needs of the town. This is a condition of the approved Heads of Terms.
• may wish to test its selection process against the Towns Fund strategic aims, objectives and priorities (Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), formerly the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG), Towns Fund Guidance, June 2020):
• the overarching aim of the Towns Fund is to drive the sustainable economic regeneration of towns to deliver long term economic and productivity growth
• spatial targeting: strong preference will be given to interventions in town centres, gateway areas and key employment sites
• Covid-19 recovery: ‘paramount that Covid-19 is factored in the decision-making’
• interventions should support clean growth where possible and, at a minimum, not conflict with the achievement of government’s net zero target by 2050.

7. Table 3 lists the three projects that best meet the approach and criteria set out in paragraphs 5 and 6, should the Board choose that methodology to select the projects to be taken forward for delivery.

Other re-prioritisation options

8. There are several other options that the Board could consider, as outlined in the tables below, should the Board decide not to use the re-prioritisation tool and adopt a different re-prioritisation methodology.

9. Board members are asked to approve the projects they want to take forward for delivery.