Controversy around scheme which awarded Norwich £25m

St Andrews Hall, and Blackfriars Hall, known together as The Halls. Picture: DENISE BRADLEY

St Andrews Hall, and Blackfriars Hall, known together as The Halls. Picture: DENISE BRADLEY - Credit: Copyright: Archant 2015

A £3.6bn fund, which awarded Norwich £25m for regeneration projects, has been criticised for a lack of transparency which has fuelled fears of “political bias”, MPs have found.

Meg Hillier, who chairs the Commons Public Accounts Committee.
Photo : Steve Adams

Meg Hillier, who chairs the Commons Public Accounts Committee. Photo : Steve Adams

The cross-party Commons Public Accounts Committee said the process for selecting communities to benefit from the Towns Fund was “not impartial” and risked undermining the integrity of the Civil Service.

Norwich was awarded £25m through the scheme, to help create a Digital Hub and Digi-Tech Factory, for a revamp of The Halls and to kickstart investment in East Norwich.King’s Lynn, Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft are also in the running to receive funding.

But, in a scathing report, the public accounts committee said ministers in the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) picked towns on the basis of “scant” evidence and “sweeping assumptions”.

Committee chair Meg Hillier said the system gave “every appearance of having been politically motivated”.

Communities secretary Robert Jenrick earlier this year denied having any role in selecting his constituency, Newark, for a £25m grant.


You may also want to watch:


Mr Jenrick, said the award had been signed off by the then communities minister Jake Berry, while he had approved a grant for Darwen in Mr Berry’s constituency.

Officials in the MHCLG had drawn up a ranked priority list of 541 towns based on need and potential for development for ministers to select from.

Most Read

While the top 40 “high priority” locations were confirmed, ministers picked another 61 “medium and low priority” communities from the rest of the list.

Although they were supposed to record their “rationale”, the committee said it was “not convinced” by some of the reasons given and the selection process was “not impartial”.

The committee said a lack of transparency “fuelled accusations of political bias in the selection process”.

An MHCLG spokesman said: “We completely disagree with the committee’s criticism of the Town Fund selection process, which was comprehensive, robust and fair.

“The Towns Fund will help level up the country, creating jobs and building stronger and more resilient local economies.”

Become a Supporter

This newspaper has been a central part of community life for many years. Our industry faces testing times, which is why we're asking for your support. Every contribution will help us continue to produce local journalism that makes a measurable difference to our community.

Become a Supporter
Comments powered by Disqus