Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision

This was the annual report for the Community Grants fund for voluntary, community, and not for profit organisations. It provides an overview of the process, eligibility criteria and budget. Appendices 1 and 2 of the Officer’s report detailed the applications received with recommendations for 2025/26 awards.

The report also provided an update on the work of the Grants Team carried out to date in 2024/25 and plans for 2026/27.

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Approved the Community Grants to voluntary and community organisations for 2025/26, as set out in Appendices 1 and 2 of the Officer’s report, subject to the budget approval in February 2025 and any further satisfactory information required of applicant organisations.

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

See Officer’s report.

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Community Funding and Voluntary Sector Manager.

The Community Funding and Voluntary Sector Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Strawberry Fair was not an event within the control of the City Council. It was managed by a community interest company who decided whether the event went ahead or not. Any decision to run Strawberry Fair was made by the community interest company and the City Council had no influence over this. Money allocated for Strawberry Fair would be reallocated as the Fair had been cancelled.

     ii.          The procurement of a Digital Grants Platform (DGP) was underway, with a preferred supplier now identified. Further details were embargoed until the preferred supplier was announced.

   iii.          Some funding was allocated to projects who made year-on-year funding applications, and some funding was allocated to ‘new’ projects who applied for the first time each year.

   iv.          Project monitoring of the impact of year-on-year funding grants to organisations was required and 6 month monitoring was required if the award was for over £20,000. Officers also monitored the impact of funding by attending meetings, events and activities run by applicant groups.

    v.          When community grant funding was not allocated, officers looked to support applicants in other ways such as signposting other funding sources.

The Committee resolved by 7 votes to 0 and 1 abstention to endorse the recommendation.

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.