Clash over Colne and village upgrades in new £1.5m Pendle fund

Pendle Council’s leader says he ‘resents’ implications that public consultation about how a £1.5m government grant should be spent in towns and villages has not been robust.

Lib-Dem Coun David Whipp said ‘virtually every community’ in Pendle has been involved in discussing the government’s Pride in Place Impact Fund. The scheme offering grants for short-term projects to boost communities, public spaces and high streets.

He strongly rejected Conservative claims that some projects have been overlooked, including in Colne and Foulridge, or town master-plans have been ignored. Also, he rejected suggestions that councillors on Pendle’s joint Lib-Dem-Independent executive have influenced decisions or not scrutinised officers’ recommendations.

Under the Impact Fund, Pendle is earmarked £1.5m. Some local ideas have been short-listed but local MP Jonathan Hinder recently called for a pause. That came after Earby Town Council claimed the borough was ‘dismissing’ local  preferences and proposing ‘unwanted’ alternatives.

At the latest full council, Conservative opposition leader Ash Sutcliffe raised questions about the fund, the council’s scoring system to short-list projects and the executive’s scrutiny.

He asked: “Did the council leader read the Impact Fund documents in full, including the appendixes? And did the executive accept the council’s scoring system without discussion or challenge?”

He added:  “How were new projects that were not even mentioned, consulted-on or scored, inserted at the last minute into a report approved by the executive in mid-March? An example is moving Colne’s multi-use games area at Alkincotes Park, which does not even add any new facilities.”

COLNE QUESTIONS

Conservative Sarah Cockburn-Price asked: “Why, when Pendle’s MP has expressed concern about council scoring and a lack of consultation, did the leader insist on pursuing certain projects, especially in Colne, at the executive meeting in March?

“The executive simply accepted a resolution from Colne Town Council without consulting Pendle Council’s Colne area committee.  Is Colne Town Council more important? And how is it that Earby Town Council, which wanted to pursue ideas in its local master-plan, was largely ignored?”

Regarding the council’s scoring, Tory Coun David Cockburn-Price said: “The scoring system insisted that projects which could be completed and paid-for within a time-frame would get 10 points. If not, they got five or zero points. So, some schemes that people wanted were simply scored-out, including town master-plan projects.

“We already have master-plans for towns including Colne and Earby. These are supposed to be ‘shovel-ready’ projects. But what score did bids receive for having a master-plan link – one point out of 60. Scoring did not really recognise the value and effort that went into the master-plans.”

“In Colne, we wanted to transform New Market Street into an events space, continuing the Blues music festival and other events through the year.  We wanted a wheelie park on North Valley Road and to restore the cemetery chapel, so funerals could be held there again. ”

He also said match-funding, where a second organisation pledges to contribute to a sum of money, was not required under government rules. But Pendle Council had favoured some projects where large amounts of match-funding was offered. Or, in contrast, the council had favoured other projects without match-funding, such as paving or electrical work at Colne’s revamped market hall.

And Conservative Kevin Salter said: “As chairman of Foulridge Parish Council, I was informed that projects that have already been started were not valid for the Impact Fund. I had projects that could have applied for funding to be completed.

“I was also very surprised to see flagging work outside Colne Market Hall, which was finished in February, listed in this scheme. I thought rules do not allow for ‘back-filling’ of funds?”

‘WE HELD WIDE CONSULTATION

However, Lib-Dem Lola Whipp said: “Pride in Place money should be better-spent on things that already exist and can be well-maintained – rather than brand-new projects. And cash should lift-up areas of Pendle that have been forgotten or left behind neighbouring towns, which deserve money too but have got ahead.”

David Whipp, the council leader, said: “I’m afraid party politics is interfering in this. We received over 70 projects from parish and town councils, and Pendle Council area committees covering virtually every community.

“I regret our MP intervened and called for a pause. Our consultation was exhaustive. At Burnley Council, its executive was simply asked what they wanted to approve and that was the programme. A third of their cash, £450,000, is going into one project – a sports centre.

“I’m not criticising Burnley – but we did it differently. We had wide consultation and one council officer has spent three months checking and going back to people. Pendle councillors had no role in the scoring and our chief executive would not allow that.”

Following MP Jonathan Hinder’s intervention, Coun Whipp said Pendle Council currently has £750,000 in the bank – half the potential £1.5m. So Pendle’s executive has, so far, approved cash got some of the highest-scoring bids.  He said one Foulridge project for a play area is higher-scored while another for the village hall is lower.

But Coun Whipp added: “The remainder of the funding is now in the MP’s court. And I resent the implication from the MP and some councillors that our officers have not been robust. Officers have worked their socks off. Match-funding was encouraged by the government but not a barrier. And match funding of £275,000 has been proposed, making a total potential of £1.75m. That is a cracking result.”

Finally, he said: “If we’d only considered our town master-plans then smaller places like Foulridge, Trawden and Laneshawbridge wouldn’t have a look-in.”