Decision
Analysis
outcome: Recommendations Approved
summary: The decision to approve funding for projects in the district based on recommendations from the Rural England Prosperity Fund Assessment Panel.
topline: The Chief Executive Officer has decided to approve funding for projects in the district based on recommendations from the Rural England Prosperity Fund Assessment Panel.
reason_contentious: This issue is not particularly contentious as it is in line with government funding allocation and aims to deliver positive outcomes for the district.
affected_stakeholders: ["Rural England Prosperity Fund Assessment Panel", "Organizations in the district", "Council"]
contentiousness_score: 2
political_party_relevance: No mentions or implications of political parties or political influence on the decision.
URL: https://meetings.cotswold.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=424
Decision Maker: Chief Executive Officer
Outcome: Recommendations Approved
Is Key Decision?: No
Is Callable In?: No
Purpose: To approve the recommendations of the Rural England Prosperity Fund Assessment Panel and award funding to a number of projects in the district based of the recommendations of the REPF Assessment Panel, which included both internal and external stakeholders.
Content: To approve the recommendations of the Rural England Prosperity Fund Assessment Panel and award funding to a number of projects in the district based of the recommendations of the REPF Assessment Panel, which included both internal and external stakeholders. The decision to approve the recommendations of the Rural England Prosperity Fund Assessment Panel and award funding to a number of projects in the district was taken in accordance with resolution 12 approved by Council on 21 May 2025. The decision taken was to enable the Council to make use of the Rural England Prosperity Funding allocated to it by Government and to approve applications by organisations in the district which would help the Council to deliver the outputs and outcomes set out in the REPF Local Investment Plan addendum. The alternative of not approving the panel’s recommendations was considered and rejected because doing so might have resulted in failing to spend the allocation available and not delivering the outputs and outcomes expected of the Council. There were no declarations of interest.
Date of Decision: July 21, 2025