URL: https://stroud.moderngov.co.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=297

Decision Maker: Strategy and Resources Committee

Outcome:

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: No

Purpose: The CCC Phase 1B project is submitting an additional funding bid to NLHF by 14 July 2025 to secure funding to complete the project and reconnect the Stroudwater Canal to the national canal network at Saul Junction. Additional funding is required from project partners and fundraising to match the NLHF bid request. The details will be set out within this paper.

Content: The Canal Project Director introduced the report advising SDC had been at the forefront of restoring the canal since 2006 and had been supported through funding from the National Heritage Lottery Fund (NLHF) for £12.8million. He outlined the history of the project and advised it would be expected to be completed in 2029 also marking the 250th anniversary of the canal.   Since 2020 there had been significant economic changes which had meant that the project would require additional funding to complete. The NLHF had created a Covid fund to offer additional funding to existing projects. SDC had submitted an initial bid in 2023 and a further bid proposal needed to complete the final stage following a cost gathering exercise. SDC’s proposal required contributions from project partners and match funding from the NLHF.   Table 2 of the report outlined the funding gap of £10.5million which required £6.4million from the NLHF and £4million match funding from project partners with table 4 showing a further breakdown. The Stroud Valleys Canal Company and Gloucestershire County Council had approved their contributions, and the Cotswold Canal Trust Board were due to approve theirs the following week. A £1.5million contribution from SDC was required to complete the match funding request. SDC as the accountable body, would be responsible for any funding shortfall or cost increase to provide the NLHF with assurance allowing them to commit their funding.    In response to Members questions, the following answers were provided: Funding from partners was subject to the NLHF contribution. If SDC did not receive the full amount from the bid, all project partners would need to be consulted with to establish if they would continue with their funding contributions. Decisions to obtain land acquisition from Ecotricity were ongoing and they were committed to the project. The land acquisition agreement must be in place by the end of August 2025. SDC were the accountable body for the project and there were tight governance models in place regarding the financial and engineering scrutinisation which were made up of individuals with expertise. The M5 crossing and Walk Bridge had been redesigned to reduce the financial costings. Being the accountable body would function similarly to a project within the Capital Programme for any financial shortfall. The sums involved made the project high risk and Committee would closely monitor this through the budget monitoring process. The financial implications outlined some key risks and stated SDC’s contribution was conditional to the NLHF match funding. The required fundraising target also identified as a risk as the target had not been achieved yet and progress would be reported back to Committee on progress. SDC in total had spent £3.46million on the delivery of the project. The NLHF would not likely grant their funding contribution without the land acquisition in place by the end of August 2025. A verbal agreement had been made with the owner of Eastington Trading Estate and a formal agreement was being produced. There was not a definitive list of tangible quantifiable benefits of the project to date however the methodology used by the Independent Monitoring and Evaluation Consultant had been included as an appendix. They would produce a detailed report in November on the outcomes SDC were wanting to achieve. A long term lease option would be for 250 years however the Officer believed the land acquisition route would be completed by the deadline. Officers aimed to exceed the £400k fundraising target required over the next 4 years as an additional £550k was required to operationalise moorings at Hydes Basin. The £550k was removed from the proposed bid to secure the match funding needed from the NLHF to complete the project. Paragraph 1.3 and table 5 of the report stated the current inward investment and housing estimated benefit cost and how the project supported the Council Plan Objectives. The Canal Project Director would provide an update to Members outside of Committee on the breakdown of the £135million estimated inward investment and housing benefit. Gloucestershire had a high rate of Business Rates Pool gain and the projected figures in February 2025 suggested SDC would receive in the region of £980k. If there were a reduction that fell short of the required £900k there was a Business Rates Pilot Reserve which could bridge the gap. Officers suggested that as part of the budget monitoring process to include updates of how the Business Rates Pool gain was looking throughout the year to monitor SDCs gain. Other avenues such as in-year revenue funding, reserves or borrowing against the Capital Budget could also contribute towards any shortfall from the Business Rates Pool gain to bridge any gap required to meet the £900k required.    Proposed by Councillor Pearcy, seconded by Councillor Caton Hughes.   Members during debate made the following comments: Councillor Green commented on the Social Value gained from the project and costs input from SDC. The project had been supported cross party and felt it would be a travesty for the district and beyond if the canal was not to be completed. Councillor Hyndside explained the project had been driven by the community for the community with value being added by volunteers. He highlighted the potential future financials and value gained from the project and to tribute the number of volunteering hours put in. Councillor Luff commented the benefit to complete the project had been felt by partners and organisations. SDC’s good financial position allowed for investment to be put into its communities. Councillor Caton Hughes expressed her excitement for the project and thanked Members and Officers for their careful consideration of the report. She commented on the health, social, economic and environmental benefits and volunteer commitments from across the district and mentioned the projects feature on Countyfile. Councillor Braun echoed Councillor Caton Hughes comments. She noted the significant financial commitment for the visionary project, its benefits and engagement undertaken with schools, heritage learning, and partnerships. Councillor Pearcy thanked the Officer and volunteers for their work on the project to date stating it was of national importance. The project would attract tourism, and the risks were quantified to support the legacy of the project. The Chair, Councillor Turner, informed Members that the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust had stated the project had been one of the most impactful projects that they had been part of on a social media post from the Cotswolds Canal Connected.    On being put to the vote, the Motion was carried unanimously.   RESOVLED         RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL To confirm the Council’s commitment to acting as the accountable body in managing the grant from the Lottery Fund and the overall management of the project with the Cotswold Canals Partnership.   1)    To allocate an additional £1.5 million of Council funding towards the completion of the Phase1B canal restoration project as set out in this report, conditional on the award of extra funding from the National Lottery Heritage Fund 2)    Reduce the capital budget for the Canal Project by a total of £49k as set out in this report reflecting the additional contribution from this Council and expected contributions of other sources 3)    Agree that, as the accountable body, the Council is responsible for any funding shortfall or cost increase, save for the additional funding from the lottery application without which the project would not proceed further.    

Date of Decision: June 26, 2025