A councillor has called for more than £4 million in unallocated funding to be used for youth services or for its use to be decided by schools and parents.
Green councillor Raphael Hill made the call in a question to Brighton and Hove City Council after a report said that developer contributions for education totalling almost £4.3 million remained unspent.
Councillor Hill highlighted details contained in a report to the council’s Culture, Heritage, Sport and Economic Development Committee on outstanding developer contributions also known as section 106 money.
The report said that the council was reviewing demand for infrastructure improvements, including extensions, adaptations and refurbishments across Brighton and Hove.
The various proposals were intended to address issues such as falling pupil numbers and provision for children with special educational needs.
Developer contributions also go towards affordable housing, supporting local jobs and training, parks and open spaces, sport and recreation, transport, environmental improvements and public art.
The funding is meant to mitigate the effects of new housing schemes on the local area.
Councillor Hill, who represents Round Hill ward, said: “Will the council consider consultation with local schools and parents about how best to use these funds?
“Can it provide further information as to any stipulations behind this money, such as where funds need to be committed to a specific geographical area and whether or not it can be used for youth services?
“How much does the council expect to use to cover revenue borrowing costs?”
The co-chairs of the council’s Children, Families and Schools Committee, councillors Lucy Helliwell and Jacob Taylor, replied.
They said that the money could not be used for youth services unless they were part of the “educational delivery” at a school or other education setting.
Any section 106 funding would be used to invest in education infrastructure in a way that would reduce the need for borrowing.
They said: “We have already earmarked some section 106 funding to particular projects in our schools and ensured alignment with the geographical limitations placed upon some of the funding.
“It is essential that we maximise the use of this funding for the long-term delivery of education that meets the needs of all of the city’s children.
“This is why consultation with all partners is important before all funds are allocated.”
The council is looking at using the money to fund “high-needs provision” along with special grants from the Department for Education.
The two councillors said that any future extension of special educational needs provisions locally would be carried out in consultation with schools and parent representative groups.
The council is currently carrying out public consultations on proposals to close two primary schools and cut admission numbers at nine primary and infant schools.
Couldn’t a group of young people get together to form some youth services, approaching The Princes Trust for funding? Just an idea.
A “spare £4million?” Now there’s a novel concept. This is the first mention of “unallocated funding” I have seen regarding BHCC. Where is this magic pot of money on the BHCC accounts, how much is in it and can we all access it?
It’s not spare and it’s not magic pot and you can read all about in the committee report available on the councils website.
S106 money is ring fenced and can only be spent on specific things like improvements. It can’t be spent on staff to run youth (or any other group) groups or events.
So it could be spent on refurbishing a schools sports facilities but not on PE teachers.
And if the developer payment can’t be used within a specific time on an eligible project it has to be refunded.
This is the most frustrating thing I’ve seen in the comments on this site – people talking absolute nonsense, about things that are easily researched via publicly available information.
That, or people thinking they know better than people who have worked in the public sector for 20+ years about how to manage, fund and run an organisation across multiple directorates with thousands of staff ands ongoing projects.
Yes, I’m sorry. I don’t know anything about it. It was just an idea (albeit not a good one), that came into my head. However, although this isn’t related to the £4million, I know of a couple of people that did benefit from the Prince’s Trust, and go on to have their own businesses. I’m sure there are innovative, passionate youth. Sorry, for commenting.
Anne there was nothing wrong with your comment and no need to apologise.
In fact it’s helpful to realise that the Trust is still out there funding things.
20 ago a friend got help from the Trust in setting up his business and he’s gone from strength to strength with it and it was only the Trust was was willing and able to help him start up. It wasn’t just money but linking him with advisors.
The criticism was about the poster who used the term ‘spare money’ and ‘magic pot’