UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF) Grant - Follow up Queries Moylegrove
We are writing to seek clarification and further information regarding the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (SPF) grant awarded to Consulting AM Ltd / Adventure Beyond for the Old Bus Depot, Moylegrove project. Having reviewed your previous response and the details provided on FOI 3360129, we would be grateful if you could address the following points regarding project milestones, match funding, the timing of payments, and the impact of the ongoing judicial review. We understand that the timeframe for completion was set for March 2025, and that all agreed project milestones were to be met within this period. It also appears that the project remains far from completion, with substantial work still outstanding on the hub itself. In addition, we would be grateful if you could clarify the current position regarding the defaulting of the grant and what specific steps or plans are in place to rectify this matter. It would be helpful to understand what actions have been taken by the applicant and the Council to ensure compliance with the terms of the SPF award. 1. Project Milestones and Match Funding Your response indicates that Consulting AM Ltd reported only £6,492.96 in match funding by the end of the project period, with further costs 'to be met after February 2025' to reach the required £100,000 contribution. Please clarify: Which specific project milestones were contractually required to be completed by March 2025, and whether these milestones have been met. Whether the match funding requirement of £100,000 was contractually required to be evidenced or defrayed by March 2025. Why, as of the latest reporting period, the full match funding has not yet been achieved. Why PCC allocated a supplementary award of £46,165 despite no demonstrated commitment to meet the match funding requirement. I would also draw attention to the statement contained in the original grant application, Finance Section 4b, which states: 'The funds are available immediately from the applicants or their respective owners/directors and will be used at point of purchase of the site.' It appears that this condition has not been fulfilled, and I would be grateful for clarification as to why additional public funding was granted following this apparent non-compliance, particularly after allowance had already been made for potential legal challenges. Given the limited match funding achieved and the lack of milestone confirmation, please provide clear evidence of when match funding must be paid or defrayed under the terms of the grant agreement. Leaving it as an indeterminate future obligation creates a risk that match funding may never be delivered, potentially affecting both the integrity of the SPF grant conditions and the project's eligibility under UKSPF compliance rules. 2. Project Risk and Judicial Review Given that the planning decision for the site has been quashed following a judicial review, and that the applicant is described as 'seeking to remedy the default,' please confirm: Whether PCC considers the risk that the project may not proceed as planned due to the judicial review outcome. Whether the Council has undertaken any internal risk assessment or review of potential grant clawback or recovery options. Whether the Council is satisfied that continuing to regard the project as 'capable of remedy' remains appropriate, particularly given the lack of demonstrated match funding and unmet milestones and also the breaches of the grant with respect to the other applicant Jethro Moore no longer being a part of the coasteering concordat - which was a mitigating protection detailed in Gwyn Evan's response to the community on the 17th April 2024 (this has been sent to you on a previous email) 3. Supplementary Grant Award (5 February 2025) While your response indicates that no meetings were held prior to approving the £46,165 supplementary award, could you clarify: The rationale and justification for granting this additional funding on 5 February 2025, coinciding with the ongoing judicial review. Whether any internal review, risk assessment, or legal advice was sought before authorising this payment, especially in light of unmet milestones and outstanding match funding obligations. 4. Risks Associated with Further Funding Post-Judicial Review Submission Given that Wild Justice submitted a judicial review within six weeks of the planning approval on 16 October 2024, please could the Council explain: Why a supplementary award of £46,165 was authorised despite the project's planning consent being under legal challenge. Whether any risk assessment, legal advice, or due diligence was undertaken prior to approving this further payment, specifically in relation to potential SPF clawback, ineligible expenditure, or maladministration risk. Whether the Council has considered that continuing financial commitment to this project during or after the judicial review process could create a perceived or actual bias in subsequent planning or funding decisions ' for example, that officers or members of Pembrokeshire Coast National Park Authority or PCC might feel under pressure to approve any re-submission in order to protect public funds already expended. Please provide any relevant internal correspondence, reports, or legal advice summaries addressing these issues. 5. Parameters of the 'Remedy' and Compliance with SPF Objectives Your response refers to the applicant 'seeking to remedy the default' following the judicial review which quashed the planning permission. Please provide: A definition of what constitutes an acceptable 'remedy' under Clause 22 of the grant agreement. The timeframe within which the remedy must be completed in order to maintain grant eligibility. Confirmation of whether PCC considers that a re-submission for planning permission, if granted beyond March 2025, would still be compliant with SPF delivery deadlines. Clarification of how PCC will ensure that any remedied project continues to deliver the community and public benefit outcomes required under UKSPF objectives. Given that the project's community benefit is integral to SPF eligibility, please confirm whether the Council accepts that loss or material reduction of such benefit would render the SPF funding ineligible or subject to clawback. 6. Current Status and Future Payments Finally, please confirm: Whether any further payments have been made or are scheduled to be made to Consulting AM Ltd since 4 February 2025. Whether the Council has placed any hold, suspension, or review on payments pending resolution of the judicial review or a fresh planning determination. We would appreciate a detailed written response, including copies or summaries of any relevant internal correspondence, reports, or policy documents that support the Council's position on these matters. In particular, please provide full clarification on the status of the default, the actions being taken to rectify it, and the Council's assessment of compliance with the original financial assurances given under Finance Section 4b of the grant application.