Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Issue
20 Area Committee Community Grants 2016-17 PDF 278 KB
Minutes:
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:
Ref |
Organisation |
Purpose |
Award £ |
WC1 |
Christ's Piece Residents' Association |
Cost of 1 talk |
290 |
WC2 |
Friends of Histon Road Cemetery |
Running costs |
500 |
WC3 |
Friends of Midsummer Common |
Maintenance of Community Orchard |
445 |
WC4 |
Sustrans |
Fortnightly social walks |
1,500 |
Budget available |
£8,520 |
Total awards |
£2,735 |
Budget remaining |
£5,785 |
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.