Report to Portfolio Holder: Housing and 11 May 2016 Regeneration

Subject: Community Heritage and Environment Fund 2016/17 Status: Open - Routine Matter for Decision Report ref: Basing, Burghclere, Highclere and St Mary Bourne, Eastrop, Hatch Warren and Beggarwood, Kingsclere, Ward(s): Oakley and North Waltham, South Ham, Upton Grey and the Candovers Key Decision: No

Key Decision / Ref: Report of: Head of Street Scene, Parks and Regulatory Services Terry Martin (01256 845597) ext 2597 Contact officer: Email: terry.martin@basingstoke.gov.uk Appendix 1: Summary of grant applications Appendices: Appendix 2: CHEF criteria Appendix 3: CHEF assessment criteria Papers relied on to Decision notice 63/2013 – Green Infrastructure Strategy - produce this report: Adoption

1 Executive Summary

1.1 The purpose of this report is to consider applications for grant aid from the Community Heritage and Environment Fund (CHEF).

1.2 This report relates to applications for funding in 2016/17, and the grant applications within this report are in accordance with the criteria for eligibility.

2 Recommendation

2.1 It is recommended that:

2.2 the projects numbered 1-7 be offered grant aid to the value of £32,092 as set out in the Appendix 1; and

2.3 the unallocated budget of £7,908 is approved to fund projects arising from the council’s Green Infrastructure Strategy.

1 of 12 PRIORITIES, IMPACTS AND RISKS Contribution to Council Priorities This report accords with the council’s Budget and Policy Framework and directly supports the Council Plan priority/priorities of protecting our environment, creating neighbourhoods where people feel safe and want to live, and supporting active healthy and involved communities.

GLOSSARY OF TERMS Term Definition CHEF Community Heritage and Environment Fund

MAIN CONSIDERATIONS

3 The Proposal

3.1 The Community Heritage and Environment Fund (CHEF) supports schemes which improve the natural and / or built environment, and are of public benefit. Projects can be suggested by local residents, councillors, resident groups or parish councils, and by officers. In some cases these are implemented by the applicant, but in other cases they can be implemented by the borough council, especially if the scheme is on council-owned land or is complex in nature.

3.2 A total of 11 applications were received for funding in 2016/17, with requested grants totalling £59,910. The applications were as follows:

1. Little Penwood, Burghclere – construction of boardwalk & steps

2. Millfield LNR – installation of sleeper walkways

3. Preston Candover – war memorial restoration

4. Westside Community Centre – Community Garden

5. Land at Highdowns, Basingstoke – defensive planting

6. St Mary’s Church, Kingsclere – plastering works

7. Oakley to Kempshott footpath – community bulb planting

8. St Michael’s Church Cottage – Beam repairs

9. Proteus Theatre Group – Community Garden

10. All Saint’s Church, Dummer – professional fees

11. Basingstoke in Bloom – running costs

3.3 Of these, applications 8, 9, 10 & 11 were withdrawn or classed as not eligible for grant funding.

2 of 12 3.4 It is proposed to award funding to all of the eligible schemes as the total of the requested grants falls within the budget available for the works. Details of the applications are set out at Appendix 1.

3.5 Grant aid would contribute to environmental improvements within the Borough by, for example, helping to protect the historic character of conservation areas and structures of historic interest, improving or creating habitats, and improving the amenity of areas adversely affected by nuisance issues.

3.6 The total cost of grants applied for is £7,908 less than the budget available and it is proposed that the remaining budget is used to fund projects that arise from the council’s Green Infrastructure Strategy. This is in line with Decision Notice 63/2013, which in addition to adopting the strategy as council policy, identified potential funding streams for its implementation.

3.7 The Green Infrastructure Strategy was adopted by the council in July 2013, and includes an action plan setting out the delivery of a number of projects and initiatives. Within these project areas, there are physical improvements that are required and it is considered that the unallocated funding arising from the CHEF budget should fund these works. These works would also be in line with the criteria and provisions of the programme.

3.8 This is the final allocation of grants under the CHEF scheme, as future capital funding for community infrastructure projects will be allocated under the revised Local Infrastructure Fund scheme.

4 Options Analysis

4.1 It is considered that there are three options available:-

1. The council is committed to protecting and enhancing the natural and built environment, and this is reflected within the council plan. In order to facilitate this in areas that local communities and residents consider to be important, the CHEF budget has been set up. Awarding funding for projects that are implemented throughout the borough would result in direct and positive benefits to the natural and built environment, allowing the council to meet its priorities.

2. Rather than allocate the balance of funding towards green infrastructure projects, it would be possible to hold another application round for grant aid later on in the year. However, if this was done, it would not allow the progression of works pursuant to the green infrastructure strategy as outlined in 3.5 above.

3. The alternative option would be not to award any funding towards these projects. As a result, the council would not be able to deliver council priorities as effectively.

4.2 Option 1 is clearly the preferred course of action.

5 Corporate Implications

5.1 Financial Implications

3 of 12 5.2 The total capital budget for CHEF is £40,000 in 2016/17. The applications numbered 1-7 in Appendix 1, if approved, would allocate £32,092 of the budget. This would result in a sum of £7,908 remaining, which would be allocated to identified projects arising from the Green Infrastructure Strategy.

5.3 Risk Issues

5.3.1 All project management risks are the responsibility of the applicants. In terms of budget allocations, if any project costs less than the awarded funding or is not implemented, then any outstanding budget will be used to implement other projects relating to the Green Infrastructure Strategy.

5.4 HR Issues

5.4.1 There are no HR issues arising from this report.

5.5 Equalities

5.5.1 When considering the Public Sector Equality Duty (Equality Act 2010), there are no equalities issues arising from the proposals set out in this report. The allocation of funding to local projects that improve the natural/built environment and benefit local communities is positive for all protected characteristics groups.

5.6 Legal Implications

5.6.1 There are no Legal issues arising from this report.

5.7 Any Other Implications

5.7.1 There are no other implications arising from this report.

6 Communication and Consultation

6.1 Hampshire County Council and English Heritage are consulted when involved in these projects. Local ward members have in many cases already been notified of scheme proposals by the applicants, their support being noted in their applications. For any schemes to be implemented by council officers, ward members will be consulted regarding the detailed proposals as they are drawn up ready for community consultation.

6.2 Once the list of schemes proposed has been approved, successful applicants will be notified.

7 Conclusion

7.1 The CHEF budget has been set up to enable the council, through working with communities and groups, to implement projects that safeguard and improve the natural and built environment. It is considered that projects 1-7, identified below would achieve this and help the council to fulfil its corporate priorities.

7.2 Furthermore, the use of the unallocated element of the budget to fund works arising from the council’s GI Strategy, would also be an appropriate use of resources to achieve corporate priorities

4 of 12 APPENDIX 1 PROPOSED SCHEMES TO BE OFFERED FUNDING

PROJECT: Little Penwood, Burghclere – provision of boardwalk and steps WARD: Highclere and St Mary Bourne Ward Applicant BDBC Officer Grant requested £4,675 Scheme cost £4,675 Proposed offer £4,675 (100%) Little Penwood is a mixed broadleaf woodland located in the Parish of Highclere adjacent to the Heathlands and Woodlands residential areas. It has the potential to be a high value public amenity, providing recreational, landscape and ecological value. In order to promote positive use of the woodland, promote public access and counter anti-social behaviour, a woodland management plan was prepared jointly by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council and Highclere Parish Council with a key objective to provide a network of managed footpaths, increasing natural surveillance and promoting use of the woodland for exercise and recreation. Vegetation clearance has taken place and a way-marked trail with exercise equipment is being developed; however the boggy and uneven terrain to the south of the woodland is an obstacle to completing the path network. It is therefore proposed to construct a boardwalk across the wet area and install timber steps to improve access across the uneven land. The proposal would benefit the community by helping to provide a more accessible public open space and is in accordance with the council’s Tree Strategy and Green Infrastructure Strategy.

This project meets the CHEF criteria in that it: :  Improves the natural or historic built environment or general amenity of an area or address a nuisance issue  Is of benefit to the general public

2. Mill Field Local Nature Reserve – installation of sleeper walkways WARD: Basing Ward Applicant Mill Field Grant requested £480 Conservation Group Scheme cost £480 Proposed offer £480 (100%) Mill Field Local Nature Reserve is an area of land located to the east of Basingstoke, between Lychpit and Old Basing. It is owned by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council and is managed for its mosaic of habitats. As well as being of importance ecologically, the site is also an important local recreational resource. It is proposed to install timber sleeper walkways in some of the highest used areas to reduce erosion and damage to the ground, whilst assisting in keeping visitors away from the most ecologically sensitive parts of the site. The proposal would improve the recreational value of the area whilst also protecting local biodiversity in line with the council’s Green Infrastructure Strategy.

5 of 12 3. Preston Candover – War Memorial restoration WARD: Upton Grey and The Candovers Ward Applicant Preston Grant requested £2,375 Candover and Nutley Parish Council Scheme cost £9,500 Proposed offer £2,375 (100%) The Preston Candover War Memorial is located on the village green and is owned and maintained by Preston Candover and Nutley Parish Council. It is a locally important memorial to the men who gave their lives in two world wars, and the village honours these men every year in a Service of Remembrance which it wishes to continue. The condition of the stone memorial has been deteriorating for some time and needs to be addressed to preserve the structure for the future. The Parish Council has received help and advice from the War Memorials Trust who have indicated their willingness to pay 75% of the cost of restoration, with the CHEF fund providing the other 25%. The work will renovate and refurbish the memorial including repair of the stonework steps and will help to preserve a feature of historic interest within the Conservation Area.

4. Westside Community Centre – construction of Community Garden WARD: South Ham Ward Applicant Westside Grant requested £11,472 Community Association Scheme cost £11,472 Proposed offer £11,472 (100%) The Westside Community Association have applied for funding to help them construct a community garden on a small area of land at the rear of Westside Community Centre, off Paddock Road in South Ham. The land is at the western end of Russell Howard Park and is owned by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council who have given consent for the garden and have granted a licence for its use by the Community Association for this purpose. The idea of a community garden arose from residents and local groups at community events in 2015 and a Community Garden workshop took place to develop the vision for the garden to provide opportunities for all age groups in South Ham to become involved and remain physically active through gardening. The Community Association have developed a design which allows wheelchair access and includes raised beds to be fully inclusive of all age groups and needs. Funding is needed to install the garden infrastructure, including construction of hoggin paths, raised beds and other garden features, ground cultivation and hedge planting. Ongoing maintenance will be the responsibility of the Community Association. The proposal is in accordance with the aims of the local community plan and would benefit the local community by increasing community cohesion and promoting healthy eating and wellbeing.

6 of 12

5. Land adjacent to 54 Highdowns, Hatch Warren – defensive planting WARD: Hatch Warren and Beggarwood Ward Applicant BDBC Officer Grant requested £7500 Scheme cost £7500 Proposed offer £7500 (100%) A footpath separates a number of properties in Highdown at Hatch Warren from an adjacent open space. A low wall that runs along the side of this footpath is used for antisocial purposes including drug use, noise nuisance, and loitering by groups of youths under a street light, keeping residents awake at night. The police have received numerous calls from residents reporting drug use in the area. The land is owned by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, having been adopted from Barrett Homes. The proposal is for defensive planting in the form of robust and thorny hedging to discourage use of the wall as a bench. Removing the attraction to loiter in the area should reduce the fear of crime for residents as well as enhancing the visual amenity and biodiversity of the adjacent open space in line with the council’s Green Infrastructure Strategy.

6. St. Mary’s Church, Kingsclere – plastering works WARD: Kingsclere Ward Applicant Parochial Church Grant requested £5,000 Council, St. Mary’s Church Scheme cost £18,064 Proposed offer £5,000 (100%) St Mary’s Church is a Grade II Listed building, set within the local Conservation Area and is an important local community facility as well as a heritage asset. Problems with the building have been identified in a quinquennial inspection report and it is proposed to refurbish the floor of the Kingsmill room (church room) which is damp and disintegrating, with tiles replaced by stone tiles to match the floor in the adjacent Kingsmill chapel. It is also proposed to replaster the Kingsmill room. These works will contribute to the preservation of the building for all who use it. The remaining scheme costs are being funded by church funds.

This project meets the CHEF criteria in that it: :  Improves the natural or historic built environment or general amenity of an area or address a nuisance issue

7 of 12 7. Footpath from St Johns Road Oakley to Pack Lane, Basingstoke – community bulb planting WARD: Oakley & North Waltham and Kempshott Wards Applicant Jubiloaks Grant requested £590 Scheme cost £590 Proposed offer £590 (100%) The footpath was installed in 2011 and is a popular route for pedestrians. Jubiloaks are applying for funding to increase wildflowers and bulbs along the chalk heaps at the Oakley end, which have become neglected. It is proposed to organise a community planting event in partnership with the Oakley Community Association with the aim of visually improving the area and encouraging young people to be active in the community.

8 of 12 APPENDIX 2

COMMUNITY HERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENT FUND CRITERIA

Applications are open to anyone wanting to engage the community in improving the environment anywhere in the borough.

For a project to be considered for funding two initial criteria must be met. Thus a project should:  Improve the natural or historic built environment or general amenity of an area or address a nuisance issue  Be of benefit to the general public

General considerations: All grants are discretionary and are made subject to the availability of funding.

Unless otherwise previously agreed in writing the project will be completed within the financial year (as set out in the offer letter).

Eligible costs include all works to complete the project including any professional fees and VAT where payable.

The offer of grant will be a specific amount and there will be no obligation on the part of the council to increase the level of grant funding should the costs of the project increase.

The level of grant assistance may be increased by up to 10% of the offer made, subject to funding being available, if the costs of the works increase during the implementation of the project due to unforeseen works being necessary. This will only apply in exceptional circumstances, with the Head of Service agreement, and the council must be notified before any additional expenditure is incurred, which must not result from extending the scope of the project.

The minimum grant is £300; the maximum grant could be up to 50% of the overall CHEF budget, where such a scheme would be of substantial benefit across the key aims of the budget.

3 quotes for the work will normally be required, unless:  The level of grant aid is less than £750, or  The council is able to confirm value for money by reference to its own tendered rates (in relation to planting, surfacing, fencing or other common items); or  Highly specialised work is involved. In all cases at least one quote must be submitted. Applicants are advised to seek advice from the relevant officer at the borough council.

Applications will only be considered when submitted on the application form and supported by all the relevant supporting information.

9 of 12

Applications will normally be considered only once per year. High scoring ‘urgent’ cases could be considered part way through the year under exceptional circumstances and be delegated to the Head of Service in liaison with the portfolio holder.

The following would not be eligible for grant aid:  Projects which constitute regular or on-going maintenance or management works (unless a relatively minor part of a larger project)  Projects which could be funded solely by other means via Hampshire County Council, the Borough Council or any government agency (e.g. improvements to the highway, street lighting or signage, improvements to leisure facilities or community halls)  Works to comply with any legal/statutory requirement (e.g. planning conditions or compliance with the Equality Act 2010)  Works which require legal consent (e.g. Listed Building Consent, a Bat Licence, planning consent, etc.) but the necessary consent has not been granted  Works which have already commenced - retrospective grants will not be considered  Works which are the responsibility of a local authority or government agency (eg. footpath maintenance, maintenance of council owned land, maintenance of closed churchyards)  Works on private property where public access is not secured would not normally be eligible for assistance. However, exceptions may be made in particular circumstances where there is a broader public benefit (e.g. the restoration of a fragile or rare habitat or emergency works to a listed building at risk).

10 of 12 APPENDIX 3

COMMUNITY HERITAGE AND ENVIRONMENT SCHEME ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Funding applications can be very varied. Some have a particular focus others have more broad ranging benefits. Below are the potential attributes of a funding application against which each proposal will be scored. Following assessment all applications will be ranked according to overall score. The higher scoring schemes will be prioritised for support (subject to availability of funding).

Biodiversity (20 points)  Management or enhancement of a key habitat identified within the Hampshire Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)  Management or enhancement of Local Nature Reserve, Site of Importance for Nature Conservation or Site of Special Scientific Interest  Creation of a new BAP habitat  Expansion of existing key habitat or linking of isolated areas of key habitat  Other ecological or environmental benefits (eg. flood elevation, promotion of pollinating insects)  Benefit to particular species of concern

Built Heritage (20 points)  Grade of listed building  Condition (Building at Risk?)  Use  In a conservation area?  Contribution to area character (CA, street scene, setting of LB, landscape)

General amenity (20 points)  Visual amenity  Enjoyment of a place  Appropriateness or improvement to local character or distinctiveness  Recreation appropriate to the area (e.g. ‘passive’ recreation)  Access

Nuisance (20 points)  Reduction in crime on the site or fear of crime to those most directly affected  Reduction in existing nuisance to local residents  Removal of dereliction which could lead to nuisance  Removal of hard to maintain areas or spaces which could lead to nuisance

11 of 12 Community Involvement and benefit (10 points):  Evidence of community backing  Evidence of community involvement in implementation  Involvement of hard to reach groups  Estimate of number of people to receive direct benefit  Increasing understanding or appreciation of our environment  Promotion of skills (specific or transferable)

Value for money (10 points):  Level of partnership funding  Evidence of other support (‘in kind’)  Estimate of number of people to directly benefit from scheme  Level of maintenance required on going  Evidence of commitment to on going management/maintenance  Most cost effective option for delivering scheme

Support for other council policies (5 points)

12 of 12