Members were invited to make comments on the report. These included:

• Clarification was sought on the membership and composition of the working group that had developed the proposals, including whether it included representation from the Isle of Sheppey.
• Concerns were raised that projects described as benefiting the Isle of Sheppey appeared to be concentrated in specific locations, with limited or no allocation for other communities, including Minster, Queenborough and Rushenden.
• Members questioned whether the funding was intended to address any overspends from previous programmes, including Levelling Up.
• It was suggested that wider consultation could have been undertaken, including engagement with Chairs and Vice‑Chairs of service committees and all Members, to invite project ideas.
• Concerns were raised about the timescales for submitting project proposals, with particular reference to parish councils that met infrequently and may not have had sufficient opportunity to respond.
• Members sought clarification on which project ideas relating to the Isle of Sheppey had been rejected and what alternative projects had been considered.
• While acknowledging the constraints of the process, some Members expressed disappointment with the final list of projects and indicated a preference for alternative or more cross‑island initiatives.
• Comments were made regarding the importance of timely delivery, learning lessons from previous funding programmes, and ensuring coordination with other authorities and partners where appropriate.
• A suggestion was made to amend working group procedures to allow more time for Members to receive and review papers ahead of meetings.

The Officer responded and advised:

• Officers confirmed that the working group was a cross‑party group drawn from the Economy and Property Committee and outlined its membership, noting that it was not area‑based.
• It was clarified that the funding was not intended to address overspends from other programmes and that projects had been brought forward based on eligibility and readiness for delivery.
• Officers explained that a call for projects had been undertaken across Council services, and that the working group had considered a wide range of proposals, including several relating to the Isle of Sheppey.
• It was noted that Government timescales required relatively rapid decision‑making, limiting the scope for wider or prolonged consultation.
• Officers confirmed that project costings were necessarily indicative at this stage and that contingency had been built into the programme, with any underspend to be reconsidered by the working group.
• It was acknowledged that the process had not been ideal, but Officers emphasised that the working group had sought to develop a balanced programme within the constraints imposed.
• Officers indicated that suggestions regarding notice periods for working group papers could be accommodated without the need for a formal resolution.
• Members expressed concern that, notwithstanding reservations raised, approval of the proposals was required in order to avoid the risk of losing the funding allocation.

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Baldock and seconded by Councillor Wise.

Resolved:

(1)  Approve delivery of the Pride in Place Impact Fund (PIPIF) capital grant programme as set out at Appendix II, in line with the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government prospectus and guidance.
 

(2)  Delegate authority to the Head of Place to deliver the Pride in Place Impact Fund programme, in consultation with the Prosperity Fund and PIPIF Member Working Group.