Decision details

Funding for voluntary groups for projects that meet the funding priorities and criteria.

The Committee received a report from the Community Funding & Development Manager regarding applications received to date for 2016-17 funding for projects in the West Central Area. The Officer’s report made recommendations for awards and provides information on the eligibility and funding criteria.

Members considered applications for grants as set out in the Officer’s report, and table below. The Community Funding & Development Manager responded to Member’s questions about individual projects and what funding aimed to achieve.

West Central Area Committee Councillors were recommended:

2.1          To consider the grant applications received, officer comments and proposed awards detailed in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report, in line with the Area Committee Community Grants criteria detailed in paragraph 3.6.

2.2          To agree the proposed awards detailed in Appendix 1 and summarised in the table below:

A member of the public made a number of comments, as set out below.

1.       The complicated application form and submission process deterred people from applying for funding.

The Community Funding & Development Manager said:

                 i.          Officers offered workshops to guide groups through the forms and process and were happy to meet people to discuss funding applications and offer support to complete forms on an individual basis. The CCVS also offered support. The form for area committees had been simplified and collected the minimum criteria to enable consistent assessments to be made. Policy requirements is also proportionate to the project funding is requested for.

               ii.          Once an application was received, it was checked against funding eligibility criteria, then Officers made recommendations to Councillors to fund projects or not. Officers did not refuse to consider applications.

             iii.          The City Council offered a number of sources of funding, projects could apply for more than one if they met the criteria.

             iv.          The Council were obliged to collect project data for audit purposes, this was why application forms required detailed information. Projects needed to evidence they met funding criteria. Application forms had been simplified over time, they had been reviewed by the community forum to ensure they were user friendly.

              v.          Officers only asked for proportional information when first contacted for funding. People often thought that more was required than was actually the case.

Councillor Cantrill said that 37 funding applications had been made in the north area, which was higher than the west area. This suggested that west area could apply for more funding and that eligible projects should be encouraged to come forward.

Following discussion, Members resolved (unanimously) to approve projects as set out in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report and summarised in the table above.