Grants Overview and Scrutiny Sub-Committee - Wednesday 29 January 2025, 7:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Grants Overview and Scrutiny Sub-Committee
Wednesday, 29th January 2025 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

 
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point
Share this agenda point

.
Could you hear me for that?
Members of the committee, I will now call your names in alphabetical order.
Please switch on your microphones to confirm your attendance
Councillor Lindsay hedges
Councillor Lindsay hedges present. Thank you chair
councillor Norman Marshall
Councillor Joe Rigby president
councillor Stephen Warrell
Presence so apologies for absence have been received from councillor Jack male Cass
Councillor Mrs. Angela Graham and Councillor Daniel Hamilton.
So we have a number of officers present who will introduce themselves as they address
the committee.
We're on to item 1, declarations of interest.

1 Declaration of Interests

Are there any declarations of either pecuniary, other registrable or non -registrable interests?
No declarations?
Okay, thank you.

2 Minutes - 6th November 2024

On to Item 2, minutes of the 6th of November.
Does the committee agree the minutes of the previous meeting held on the 6th of November
can be signed as a correct record?
Thank you.

3 Wandsworth Grant Fund, Round 28 (Paper No. 25-01)

Okay, we're on to the main substance of the meeting, which is Item 3, Wandsworth Grants
Fund, round 28.
So it's the third round for this financial year and the final round of the kind of financial
year.
So Harriet Steele is going to introduce the item.
And Matt Rowe, our financial controller, is going to add a little bit on the finance after
Harriet's introduced it.
Harriet.
Thank you.
I'm Harriet Steele, the Voluntary Sector Partnership Manager.
As the Chair said, this is round 28 of the Wandsworth Grant Fund.
It's the final round for this financial year.
Within this round, we received 30 applications.
Five of those were solely arts and culture based, so these were passed over to the London
Borough of Culture to go through their champions board as previously agreed.
Three applications were ineligible, and the final 22 were eligible, so they have been
assessed, and we're recommending 12 applications at a total of £102 ,132, and I'll pass over
to Matt.
Okay, Matt, would you like to outline the finance for us, please?
Sure.
Hi, I'm Matt Rowe, Financial Controller, Finance Department.
Ahead of this paper, there is £166 ,000 remaining available for distribution in 24 -25 financial
year. This paper recommends further £102 ,000 further grants to be allocated through round
28. If the recommendations are accepted, that leaves £64 ,000 available and that includes
£21 ,000 allocation of the Wandsworth Community Fund to the London Borough of Culture.
Thank you very much.
So, committee, are there any questions for either Ms Steele or Ms Rowe?
Councillor Heater.
Just a quick one.
Thank you, Chair.
This is not to do with the actual grant, the grant fund round 28, but I just wanted to
– just a general query on paragraph 11 about the Elbok and the London Borough of Culture
local champions group.
I know they're having a meeting this evening and appreciate that's like part of the finance committee
But just wondered if there were if any information can be provided to councillors on
Who made the who's in the group and and how that came about or we can address that separately outside of this committee
Thank you
Would you like to respond thank you yes, sorry, I literally just finished that meeting
My apologies for being late.
We overran by four minutes.
So the committee paper in July 2024 on London Borough of Culture, they went to finance committee.
So, agreed that what we, just finding the number,
I'll find the number in a moment,
but agreed that as part of sort of the brief
for London Borough of Culture,
which was piloting new ways of working,
to actually hand over the decision making
on the grants to a group of residents.
So, what we did was a call out for residents
across the borough asking who would be interested in joining that working and joining the
ELBOK local champions group. We had 72 fantastic applications. So we had initially been planning
on 15 local champions. We actually ended up going for 18 local champions who have been fantastic.
And what we really wanted to do was get firstly a really lovely geographical spread, so it's
covering 15 wards, but also have a real spread of voices and really those lesser heard voices
and those community networks connections.
So how can we get the message and the projects really embedded within our communities and
that communities feel ownership and feel that they're part
of developing both the projects, but you know,
making decisions on the grant funding.
So they were the decision making for the first set
of Wandsworth Arts Fringe grants,
or for the set of Wandsworth Arts Fringe grants,
and then today's meeting, one of the things
that came out of that meeting was actually
they want to be part of designing the grants process.
So what we've just been doing now is actually looking and talking to them of how do they
want to feed into how we design and assess the Black History 365 and the South Asian
Heritage Month grants so that we're piloting new ways of working.
And if it works, then those are things that the council might want to think of and adopt
after London Borough of Culture.
If it doesn't work, then we can at least say we've tried it and we've seen what works,
what doesn't rather than using sort of the normal system that we're all comfortable with
but we're not necessarily sure is sort of filtering out
and reaching all the different parts of the borough.
Thank you.
Just one quick question.
Will you be letting us know who was selected?
It's on the website.
Could you put your – I couldn't hear what you're saying.
Thank you.
Just to follow up on will you be letting us know who was selected.
Thank you.
So, yes, I can share after this meeting the link on the new Welcome to Wandsworth website
that sort of talks about the 18 residents.
I would say I think we haven't actually published
all the information because we've got two 15 year olds,
so we've got everything from 15 year olds
through to somebody in their mid 80s.
So yeah, so and what's actually,
what I'll also share is on the Instagram,
a number of them have made small videos
saying what prompted them to apply to be local champions and yeah how they feel
about it. Yeah so yeah I mean we're not compelling any of them but we're sort of
those that are interested have been making these videos and we've been going
live with them on a staggered basis and plan to up until the launch of our year
of London Borough of Culture on the 1st of April.
Mr. O 'Donnell, can I just ask on the supplementary, and that's – this is rather early, and we
hope it goes really well, these arrangements for the borough of culture year.
But can we have assurance from you that during the year, we'll have a discussion here about
what happens in terms of the arts and culture, based on the ones with grant funds for future
years?
It's rather looking ahead after the year of borough of culture.
Yes, I mean, what we initially put in that committee paper was that there'd be an evaluation
at sort of the end, in part because we're all learning, sort of, and that was, you know,
today's conversation is that, you know, we can tell them how we've done it in the past,
but we really wanted their impact on how it's going forward.
But we're happy to do sort of a midway, a midpoint towards some appropriate point to
do a catch -up, but then do the proper evaluation
sort of on how it's worked at the end of the year.
That would be very helpful because it's interesting
on some of tonight's applications.
There's an overlap between the health and well -being strand
and some of the arts and culture strands.
There's always gonna be a bit of overlap.
Are there any other questions on the 2501 paper?
No?
but are we happy to agree the recommendations
one, two, and three, subject to the decisions
that we're gonna make when we go through individual grants?
Yep, thank you.
So, Harriet is going to take us through grants one at a time
and then see what the committee's view is
in terms of recommendations.
So do start with 28 .1.
Thank you. So the first application is from a second voice CIC and they are seeking funding
to support sessions with autistic girls and those who have yet to receive a diagnosis.
So they would like funding for six sessions on a Saturday supporting between 8 to 10 girls
aged 2 to 11 at Tooting Works and then six sessions at Rosehall and Nine Alms over the
school holidays and we're recommending to support the application. It's a well
established organization, it fits well with the children young people and the
health and well -being themes. It is a small number of places available but
they've justified that because of the additional needs that the young girls
have. They have limited information on the selection criteria of the girls and
But they're well linked into the local community.
And the evaluation is limited in how it's been described.
But they are, as I said, a well -established organization.
And officers can infer that they will have a developed plan in place.
And we have added some conditions at the end around understanding better that it's going
a new cohort of children taking part and further details on that evaluation and feedback.
But we're recommending the full amount of £9 ,630.
Any comments or questions from the committee?
Councillor Warrell.
Thank you, Chair.
I'm happy to endorse this.
Just a couple of provisos, I suppose, and a suggestion.
Reading through this, the mobilization time is actually to start in February and go through
to June, based on what you've actually said in terms of the issues around clarity around
recruitment and the evaluation process, I would suggest that I would feel quite happy
to let that mobilization time change and allow it to slip.
So if they wanted to start later on, say March or April, and carry through, I think it would
be really helpful for them.
Especially as part of would be is it would be great if they,
if officers could feedback that they've gone through and
clarified the issues around recruitment and also the evaluation process.
And just as you've raised it as a concern, so
it'd be nice to see what the results of that would be.
Any comment, Ms. Steele?
No, that's fine.
We can do that.
Yeah.
Good. Can I suggest you do that? And partly because Councillor Warrell is particularly interested, will you make sure he's fed back?
You would like that too? Okay, yeah, all right. Councillor Hedges too. Okay. So we're agreed with number one.
So number two is the Arbogne Residents Association.
Yes, so the Aboyant Residents Association are looking for £2 ,937 and this is for exercise
sessions for older residents and afternoon tea.
They're looking to support those over the age of 60.
With the sessions they can accommodate between 12 and 15 people in each class with an additional
12 to 20 for the afternoon tea,
but they have said that if they get more interest,
they could look at a circuit training model
to accommodate more people.
They have run a pilot of the project,
so this is sort of developing the project further,
and we are recommending that the project
is supported in full with 2 ,937 pounds.
Okay, I'd be very interested,
although I don't live in the right area.
I would qualify apart from that.
Any comments from the committee?
No? Group supported, yeah.
Thank you very much.
Number 3.
Artburst.
Artburst, is it your holiday play scheme?
Yes, so Artburst are seeking funding for three weeks
of a holiday play scheme in the summer for five to eight -year -olds
which would be in the Burrage Gardens Community Center
in St. John's Hill, and they're looking at dates
over August for the sessions.
They are announced a borough of providers,
so we haven't got a lot of intelligence
about how they operate.
It's not clear how well linked they are within the borough
with voluntary sector community organizations
in the wider community.
and the need for the project and the application wasn't very clearly described.
We haven't also, it's not clear how much engagement is taking place with the children of the estate
and whether this is the kind of project they would like to be involved in.
And also the project is due to start in July and we do request that projects take place
or start within three months of the funding round.
So therefore that's slightly out of that timeframe.
And finally the monitoring that they suggested
is not particularly comprehensive.
And it's unclear how they'll evaluate the project.
So I can see some merit in it,
but on balance we decided not to recommend this one.
Councilor Worrall.
Thank you.
The St. John's Hill Estate area has gone through a lot of change at the moment with new build
and Peabody developments happening up there.
I think this project has within the core of it some really good stuff that would really
help the community come together and support the people in the area.
What I'd like to suggest is you've raised a number of issues for clarification that
officers go back and work with the organization to try and clarify those and then bring it
back to the next grants round in June for as a reapplication.
As I said, I think there's a lot of stuff in here that actually would be very good for
the local community there.
As I said, you've raised areas of concern, but it would be good to work with them to
clarify that and then invite them back.
Yeah.
Yes, Councillor Rigby.
Yeah, I agree with that.
I also think we be a bit more,
I don't know what the word is here,
but some of these where it says endorsements,
they're not endorsements.
They're not, they're just words that don't endorse it.
So it says please send me an application for review
and I'll be happy to endorse it.
That's not an endorsement.
And Councillor Angela Graham, I would support this,
but suggest you speak to officers. So again it's so ambiguous so councillors need to firmly endorse
something and say why to help us. Yeah so Mr. Steele you might talk with them about making sure
the endorsers do have a draft, the final draft that comes back here so that they can comment on
the final draft properly. Yeah good point Councillor Rigby. Okay so we're not agreeing this but we're
encouraging them to come back with answers
to all those issues at the June committee,
and that would be in time for their holiday project
in August, yeah, yeah, okay, good.
Thank you.
We're on to number four, bags of taste.
Councillor Hedges, do you want to speak?
Yeah, Jonathan, she's there.
Go on, you're introduced.
Sorry, sorry.
I'm jumping the gun.
You're not recommending this, yeah.
No, no, so this is a continuation of a project
that's been running in Wandsworth by Bags of Taste.
We previously funded a similar project through this fund,
which was for children and family support,
whereas this is directed more at vulnerable adults.
They're looking to support 100 adults in Wandsworth,
focusing on groups most at risk of health inequalities.
They're looking to support four groups of 25 people,
so 100 people in total,
and they provide people with seven days worth of food
and sort of remote support around healthy cooking.
With this project,
we felt that because it, obviously,
it's a continuation of an existing program,
it's a lower priority for the funds.
There's sort of limited intervention
because it's a seven day program.
It's remote support for people,
so it's not as intensive as being in the room with somebody.
And just to flag at the end,
we've written a note to say that the group
have also applied to the cost of living funds
for this project and also a wider project across Richmond.
and that's currently being looked at by the board,
but the decision -making timeline doesn't align with this.
This is the committee it comes to first.
And the applicant suggested that if they were
in the lucky position of getting both sets of funding,
they would turn this funding down
in preference of the funding from the cost of living fund.
Councilor Hedges.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Officer Steele.
So I appreciate this is low priority and a continuation of the existing program, but
I hope members of the committee would accept that Bags of Taste has been a success and
the grant money has been put to effective use.
I think it's evidence that shows that a number of the factors contribute to making healthy
eating sometimes more difficult for those on low incomes.
86 % of the participants in the bags of taste project were on benefits.
In Wandsworth we obviously want people to have a better physical and mental health.
And organizations like bags of taste are providing vital support to disadvantaged families in
the borough.
So I would ask all members of this committee if you could please consider supporting this
application.
Thank you.
Councillor Warrell.
Yes, thank you.
I'd like to support Councillor Hedges on this one, but also recognize that actually whilst
it is a continuation of a particular intervention, as has been identified, the focus has changed
slightly.
In the past, we have supported organizations that are doing similar sorts of work on a
recurring basis, but actually have refocused their work in terms of vulnerable communities
or different participants.
This one I think fits within that one.
As I said, it is successful.
It works in a model.
I've actually come across them in Hackney and other boroughs as well and seen the really
good work that they've done.
But the difference is that within this they've recognized that it is a refocus of a type
of intervention that is successful.
So I'd like us to reconsider and actually award this to them.
I recognize that you've also raised that they've applied to two different funding streams,
and they themselves said that they would turn this one down.
But I think in principle, depending on those discussions and those timelines, that this
should be supported.
Yeah, the committee is in support of this application, so we're recommending it.
Thank you very much.
So we're on to number five, which is balance support sensory spaces request for 4 ,000 pounds
and it's recommended at a reduced rate.
Yes, Muskeo, would you like to introduce it?
Yes, sure.
So this is from balance support CIO and they are requesting to re -funding to re -equip the
Sensory Suite at the Church Lane Day Center in Tooting and to create an additional sensory
Sensory resource at their open door day center in Southfields
They're requesting four thousand three hundred and eighty six pounds, and we're recommending
three thousand nine hundred and forty two and
The application again, it's it's one. It's it's around sort of
supporting their existing activities
They already, as they state, have a sensory center in one of their buildings and they
want to expand that.
But it's a fairly small amount of money.
It's for a particularly vulnerable group of people.
And the revised costings are in relation to the budget around the sensory weighted blankets.
These are blankets that they use in the sensory rooms to make people feel cocooned and safe.
They're requesting three blankets, which was a cost of 918 pounds.
It was felt that that was quite a lot of money for those type of blankets.
And officers had a conversation with the applicant who sourced a slightly different blanket,
which is cheaper.
and that cost is what is reflected in the recommended award of £3 ,942.
Committee, are you in agreement?
Councillor Hedges.
Just a question.
I think this is very worthy.
It's a cause that I would fully support.
I've just got a question, and it's just a query, actually, out of interest.
What the details have notified previous Council funding in the last two years, and there's
2 .2 million amount.
Just wondered what that was for.
That was all.
Thank you.
Ms. Steele, can you help us with that?
I'd need to get more detail about that.
I think it's their commissioned day opportunity services that they provide for people in the
borough, but I'd need to come back to you with details.
Yeah.
The rest of the committee, you're in agreement, yes?
Yeah.
Okay.
Thank you very much
So we're on to number six fantasy arts center
Wrestle lads wrestle not recommended. Yes, Mr. Steele
Thank you. Yes, sir. This is the arts center. They're seeking six thousand pounds for
an arts project
But they've applied under the health and well -being theme
it's for
25 women from the local community to be invited to perform with the artist.
It includes some, as well as performance, it includes learning skills in judo and kind
of self -defense, so there will be four evening workshops over four days, and then performance.
and offices felt that it was a fairly limited duration
and a small number of people were taking part
and would have limited value in terms of health
and well -being, which is the thematic area
it applied under.
There wasn't much information on the legacy of the sessions
or what would come out of those,
and it didn't seem to provide good value for money,
so we're not recommending awarding this project.
Yeah, I agree, not really down with anything that's promoting gangs, girls or boys.
And I was actually approached to endorse this and I didn't.
Committee in agreement, yeah. We agree with the office, not to recommend.
OK, we're on number seven, blind aid, which is recommended, reducing social isolation for the blind and visually impaired.
Yes, Ms. Steele.
So this application from Blind Aid has come on the back of a previous application that
we looked at for the cost of living fund.
We felt that by the time it didn't meet the cost of living fund, but we encouraged them
to come back to the Wandsworth Grant Fund, which is what they've done.
They are requesting funding for three 12 -week IT courses alongside a luncheon social club
for isolated blind, visually impaired adults in the borough.
They're looking to hold 36 classes with between six and eight people attending each session,
and they're expecting 18 to 24 people to complete the course, the 12 -week course.
They're looking for £9 ,448.
We feel it provides a valuable service to those who are blind or visually impaired, and we would recommend this one.
Councilor Warren.
Thank you.
I think this is a good project and I think built into this application is something that
I'd like to see in other applications that they've indicated how they're thinking about
sustaining activity beyond a grant from ourselves and they've actually addressed that within
this.
And it's something that would be useful to think about when we next year review maybe
some of the criteria around this,
is how we deal with the sustainability issue,
so that we maximize the impact of the money that's used.
Committee's in agreement, yeah, thank you very much.
Seven, no, number eight, CARAS, unlocking potential
through adult ESOL and community integration support,
which is recommended, yes, this deal.
Yes, this is from CARAS, there's two parts,
or two or three parts of the application.
They're looking at holding 36 pre -entry literacy classes, which is a new program for their
service, and 36 entry level one ESOL classes, and then ESOL level two classes.
They are looking for 9 ,986 ,000 pounds for the program.
So this is towards their existing ESOL provision as well as new activities.
So part of this would be a lower priority for the funds.
However, we do recognize that CARAS does provide important services, particularly in this part
of the borough where there isn't really anything.
There's KLS offering support in Battersea, but particularly in the area they're looking
at, there isn't much provision.
And as a borough of sanctuary and the council's you recognize this importance of funding this work
For sanctuary seekers
There is a sanctuary both sanctuary funds and that will be coming online nature near so it's recommended that this projects
Be funded in full at this stage and can then apply to the borough sanctuary fund once that's launched nature near for further
continuation if that fits the criteria the fund at the time
So we're recommending the full amount that they've requested.
Councillor Warren, did you want to make a comment?
It's just a clarification.
What's the timeframe for this?
I couldn't, reading through this, I couldn't see whether this was a six -month project,
a year -long project.
Maybe it's buried in here and I didn't actually see it, but just some clarification around
it.
I'm happy with the application, happy to support it.
But just as I said, as a technical question, the timeframe.
»» Yeah, if I could come back on that.
It's 36 sessions, so I'll come back on those,
that time frame on that.
Yeah, agreed, just come back to the last one.
Sorry, just to clarify, so it's from the 1st of March,
2025, to the end of February, 2026.
So the full year, okay, that's done.
Good, number eight's been agreed.
Number nine is Carnies Gym Transforming the Youth Space.
Ms. Steele.
Yeah, so Carnies are seeking 10 ,000 pounds
to transform their youth space.
They're looking to replace worn and damaged furniture,
repaint the walls, include new flooring
to provide a nicer space for their young people,
and also to provide some more one -to -one spaces where they can have those more private conversations.
It would include things like their lighting, seating, et cetera, and it would just enable
them to have a better use of that space for their activities, including their food offer
for young people.
We felt it would enhance the space, provide a more fit for purpose and welcoming space
for young people and thought it was a good application.
Any comments from the committee?
In agreement?
Yeah, sorry.
So I was gonna, thank you, I was just gonna ask
a question or thoughts as it were for the committee.
So projects like this and there's some others where
there is an arts element of it within it.
What we've done in the past as a grant committee is sort of said where the things like ones
with arts fringe to sort of as part of the condition to say we'd like it to be granted
as part of that.
Is the question I'm posing to you is would you consider things like this with the art
mural is then branded as part of the ELBOK program as a condition for the grant and for
the other projects as it were where there is that arts element coming through the grants
committee in future.
Can I just ask, what do you mean by branded? Is that something written on it or just…
The logo, basically. The logo.
The Wandsworth Council's London Borough of Culture logo and that it's also just
linked on the Welcome to Wandsworth website so that it's, you know, sort of seen as
of that wider year -long program.
Any comments from the committee?
I'm not sure that I've got a strong view
one way or the other, so.
I don't know if that would be for us to decide
or for the people doing the mural.
Whether it would be for us or for Carnies
to decide whether they wanted it,
because it's their artwork, isn't it?
So by putting a badge on it,
it might change it beyond what they want.
I don't know what they want this to look like.
I didn't mean on the actual,
it's when they talk about it that it's been as part of,
yes, so it's basically how they communicate
that this mural is being designed over 2025 to 2026
and is therefore part of the wider buffer.
So it's nothing written on the mural,
but it's kind of associated with, yeah?
Yes, it's just associated as part of that conse.
Okay, I think we're in agreement with that, so can we?
Yeah.
Can we add that as a condition?
We're in agreement with carnage gym recommendation, yep.
Let's see, we're on to number 10.
Create Arts Limited Creative Tandem, you're not recommending, yeah.
Ms. Steele?
Yes, so this is Create Arts.
They want to work within Springfield University Hospital Aquarius Ward to provide 10 to 12
young inpatients with arts activities.
They would run 15 half -day workshops over sort of holiday time, and they're seeking
£6 ,686.
Officers felt the application didn't clearly describe the need of the project and had limited
scope, saying it was only reaching 10 to 12 people.
It appeared to be part of the organization's existing work, which would be a low priority
for the funds, and additionally, the people in the hospital will obviously be inpatient
of Springfield, but there might not be one -source residents outside of that, whether that matters
or not, but that was just a consideration as well, so we're not recommending this one.
Committee in agreement with the officer's recommendation to not recommend this grant.
Yep, thank you.
Number 10.
Number 11 is critical support hub manager, which is recommended by officers.
Ms. Steele.
So this is critical support.
They're looking for salary cost towards a full -time food hub manager.
And that would ensure five -day week operational capacity to distribute the food that they
get as surplus from City Harvest.
They are based just outside of the borough in Merton,
but they do support Wandsworth groups and residents.
Currently, 11 of the 22 community groups
that they support are delivering to Wandsworth residents,
and this food hub manager would enable them
to widen that activity and support more groups.
As we've put it in the recommendation summary,
supporting staff costs for an existing project
is a low priority, but we felt that this one,
in particular this project, had many benefits
because it increases outreach to surplus food
and because of the breadth of organizations
it will support within the community.
So we recommended to award this with some conditions
about the applicant exploring additional ways
to kind of capture and evaluate the work that they're doing.
I'm happy to support this, but just a query.
On page 54, one, two, third paragraph down, it says the proposed start date of this project,
et cetera.
Given that there was already a food hub manager in post, yet on page 55, you said this is
actually a new post.
There's a slight contradiction there.
So, I wonder if you could just explain that contradiction or maybe I've misinterpreted
it.
I need to double check.
I think it is an existing post that they can mobilize quickly, but I need to double check
the application.
I need to double check that and come back to you, Councillor.
Support?
Yep.
Thank you very much.
We support the officer's recommendation to agree that grant.
So number 12, we're into Dance West, Dance for Dementia.
the officers are recommending the application, Ms. Steele.
Yeah, so Dance West are looking for funding
to deliver their dance with dementia projects
for people living with dementia and their carers.
They would deliver it slightly out of borough,
just over the border in Lambeth at Royal Trinity Hospice,
across two 10 -week blocks,
so running from May to July and September to November,
and the sessions will involve different types of dance
led by experienced dance teachers.
They're looking to support 15 individuals
with early stage dementia and their caregivers
over 20 weeks of dance classes
and to support 250 participants in total.
In the application they've clearly set out
and described the need for the project.
they've got robust monitoring and evaluation in place,
and they'll provide a sort of resource for those
with early stage dementia.
95 % of the attendees will be Wandsworth residents,
and we have added a condition that the funding
that we provide is solely to benefit those residents,
so we're in favor of supporting this to the full amount.
So, Ruby.
Yeah, and obviously I've supported it.
But again, when we get to Councillor Akinola, did she send her endorsement to the grants
team?
Because I'd just like us to get a bit tighter around who's, like, what we're putting in
this endorsement box.
Yeah, it's a little bit unclear, isn't it?
So and is that on us too, is that on offices to go and say where's your endorsement?
It just needs to be a proper endorsement.
Yeah, we do follow up with all councils around the endorsement.
And this, because of the nature of the application, it does only need one counselor.
So it's valid as it is.
Right.
Well, could we just not have anything in that's not an endorsement?
Because if, like, it's just for due diligence that someone's going to read this and go,
did this endorsement happen?
We've just got to be like...
I just want to say something about the learning for the year that gets captured in the guidance
both to councillors and the ones with grants filing guidance because there's always learning
and I think you're drawing attention to we need to have a bit clearer guidance to councillors.
We did have endorsements, so it's on offices. We just didn't put it in, but we did receive endorsements.
Okay. Are we agreed with this one? Yeah. So number 12 is agreed. Number third?
Not a query, just again similar to the other.
Sorry, just similar to the Carney's, this again has a strong cultural element, so whether
or not there's an agreement to sort of have as part of the grant condition that it's branded
as part of ELBOG.
Happy to do that in a similar way to the last one, yeah.
Number 13, Dendy Collective, Wandsworth Masquerade 2025.
You're recommending officers, so Ms. Steele?
Yes, so this is Dende Collective there.
It's an arts project, but they have come in under the health and wellbeing thematic area
and they've made a strong case as to why they come in under that thematic area.
They are looking to do eight weeks of creative workshops and then culminate in an interactive
walkabout performance in tooting and have a short film.
They will have mask workshops and public performance.
So they're looking at engaging 50 people
from two age groups, 18 plus and those 60 plus.
And then they anticipate that 80 % of the participants
will be Wandsworth residents,
largely from the Tooting Broadway area.
And they're expecting additionally 400 plus audience members
who will be part of the public performance audience.
As I said, this clearly met the criteria
of the health and wellbeing theme,
which is why it wasn't passed
to the Elbok Champions group.
And they've clearly evidenced the need for the project.
The engagement with local organizations
is slightly unclear, so we've asked
that both us and the grants to the arts team
help link them in with organizations locally who can provide those kind of networks for
them and it's conditional on development permissions being in place for the walkabouts and any
other sort of licensing or details that they need.
But we're supportive of the application to the full amount of £10 ,000.
So, Donald, did you want to add anything there?
No, not to add anything just again, if that could be branded as part.
Ms. Hedges.
Councillor Hedges.
Thanks, Chair.
Officer Steele, just a quick one.
I appreciate that it says here that this one is going to be coinciding with the WAF, so
clearly makes sense to put the borough culture on there as well.
I just wondered what, here it says the applicant states that it will collaborate with local
organizations, Tooting Works, Mookshekill, Assam, Hestia's Age Activity, KLS Age UK,
and I note that we have given Age UK, KLS, I think Mookshekill, yeah, I think we've
given them all grants.
I just wondered what the connection was between, or are they just local groups that they've
that they'll connect with.
Ms. Steele.
I think it's just local groups
that they said they'd connect with.
They have worked in the borough before
and these might well be connections they already have.
Mr. Worrall.
Just once again, a technical question.
Why is this coming in under this funding stream and not WEF?
This is the grant fund that they applied to.
they applied under the criteria for the ones with grant funds.
They have demonstrated how they've met the criteria
around the health and well -being themes,
so therefore we're assessing it
under the ones with grant funds,
rather than WAF.
I don't know if they applied to WAF as well.
They could have done either.
And in the body of the text, you said this also could have been
under citizenship and civic engagement.
I was just going to say, no, they didn't apply for WAF.
It could have been that, well, firstly, WAF is only up to £2 ,000, but also that grant
application closed at the end of October and was assessed and awarded in December, so it
might not have fed into their timelines.
Okay.
Let me see.
Are we in agreement?
Yes.
Okay.
Thank you.
Number 14, Generate Opportunities Limited,
social opportunities, health and well -being activities
not recommended by officers.
Ms. Steele?
Yes, the Generate Opportunities Limited
are seeking funding to provide five social
and health and well -being activities a week for a year,
which will benefit up to 15 neurodiverse
one -size -fits -all residents a week.
And the activities would be a range of things including cinema trips, theatre, concerts,
nights out, etc., mini breaks, golf.
With this application, officers, again, it was a, felt it was an existing project that
was a continuation which is low priority for the fund.
The social outcomes that they described didn't fall within the citizenship and community
engagement theme under which they applied.
And the activities would have an additional cost to people.
So most of them are not free at the point of access,
which we felt could be a barrier to some people,
given a lot of people with disabilities are unemployed.
But officers would be happy to work with the charity
to try and help them identify other funders
to support the projects.
So we're not recommending this one at this point.
I think you also said that it doesn't really come under the citizenship and civic engagements.
No, not really.
Doesn't really meet the priorities.
Councillor Hedges.
Technical point.
And sorry if I'm being pedantic.
But also this one is only, it's a borough wide application.
It's only got one councillor recommendation.
Thank you.
Do you want to comment?
Yeah, no, but it only has one.
Committee, are you in agreement with the officer's recommendations?
Turn it down, but to offer advice in other directions, I think, is what the officers have written here.
Okay, thank you.
Not to go ahead with that.
Number 15, House of Dusi Kuchur, UK.
It's not recommended by officers.
Ms. Steele.
Yeah, thank you.
So the House of Dusi Kuchur are seeking a grant of 8 ,536, and this is to host a week
of arts -focused activities and workshops for the LGBTQ plus community, as well as global
majority and black groups and non -binary residents.
They are looking to do dance workshops and culminate in a ball at the Clapham Grand.
Officers felt that the project hadn't been clearly evidenced.
The project ran a version of this last year as a kind of commercial entity and no information
would be provided about any kind of ticketing structure or how the project would operate.
It was unclear how LinkedIn the organization was with the local LGBTQ plus community and
other stakeholders.
and also a lot of the budget items were centered around bringing in judges and creatives from
America. So they included things like flights and hotels, which it was felt was inappropriate
for this fund.
Officers not recommending this for health and well -being. Mr. Donald, did you want to
say anything about it because there's a not no arts aspect.
No, I understand why the recommendation was put forward.
Yep, Councillor Warrell.
Yes, I suppose for those of you that don't know,
the ballroom culture and the LGBTQ community's
very, very significant in terms of a safe space
for different members of that community.
A lot of work is done around it
in terms of health education work and esteem building work.
I understand and I'd agree with it being turned down here.
I'm not trying to get the decision overturned.
I think what might be useful is if the officers could suggest
and help them actually link in with the London Borough
of Culture approach and link in with that one,
because I think it fits more within that one.
And especially as Councilor Canola has supported it,
I think there is a more direct link there.
I think also within that, just to recognize,
as I said, in the exploration of this,
is that you can actually build a number of different forms
of interventions around STEAM work
and health education work within this,
and it works within that way.
So I fully endorse turning this one down.
I think it would be useful for them to explore.
Yes, Ms. Adama?
No, just on that note, we worked with them
last year on their project.
We weren't aware that they were planning to apply.
and if they had discussed the application beforehand and stuff actually quite a bit of the
the issues with the application
Could have been resolved
But yes, it's an organization. We're very keen to work with over London bar of culture. It was just that within the application
You know it's for all the reasons steel is outlined
Good, I think we're agreeing to turn this down, but suggest the talk to London Bar of Culture
That's number 15.
Number 16 is recommended Catherine Lowe's segment, Family Futures Refugee Program, parenting
workshops.
And officers are recommending.
Ms. Steele?
Yes, this is Catherine Lowe seeking funding for the Family Futures Refugee Program.
So it would be a 12 -week course which will run three times during the year.
So in total, they'll have 36 workshop sessions in three cohorts, so 16 people per cohort.
24 of the sessions will be led by a group called Incredible Elevated, and 12 will be
by education specialists.
And then they'll have sessions around for parents, 16 parents per term.
For this application, again, it was acknowledged that refugees often experience severe and
complex trauma, and that's part of what the application was looking to address.
It was felt that, again, it met the council's commitment to the borough of sanctuary, and
And again, the organization could apply to the Bureau of Sanctuary Fund when that comes
online, Nature in the Year, to support their wider work with sanctuary seekers.
We have recommended the full award of 9 ,727, but we have suggested that they look at how
they can integrate their offer with Children's Services.
So we had a conversation with colleagues in Children's Services, and they felt that that
would be a useful connection.
and also we wanted the group to look at ways to capture
some of the longer term impact of their work
so they can demonstrate that going forwards.
Thank you very much.
We've agreed number 16.
Number 17, officers are not recommending Living Truth CRC,
Healthy Minds and Healthy Community Project.
Ms. Steele.
So Living Truth were requesting 8 ,680 pounds for
their whole family health and well being sustainable living project.
So this would see six families benefit in an eight week program.
They included mental health sessions, sessions on growing fruit and veg,
public speaking, and then a four day farming and
sustainable living residential on East Shallowford Farm
in Devon, officers felt that this was a continuation
of what had previously been supported
and was therefore a low priority for the fund.
They had, the applicant had made a limited case
for the need of this project,
particularly the residential farm visits
and being just six families,
it was felt they had quite limited reach.
so officers were not recommending to support the project.
Committee's in agreement with that recommendation,
so yeah, we don't support that project.
So we're on to number 18,
regenerate training of youth workers and mentors,
which is not recommended by officers.
Ms. Steele?
Yeah, so this is regenerate .com,
looking for 8 ,000 pounds towards supervision meetings
for three months for all our youth workers
and mentoring staff.
One of them would be a psychotherapist session
and one with an external youth practitioner.
And alongside that there would be some training.
It was felt that the project didn't directly fit
within the children and young people's thematic area,
which is the area they had applied to.
It was unclear if the supervision sessions
and training was something that the youth work staff
or whether it was something that come from the organizational level and it was felt that
the applicant had the duty to provide a sufficient level of supervision and support for their
staff and the cost of this should be supported at that organizational level rather than applying
to the council.
The council does have a free multi -agency training offer so we can link that in with
the groups so that they can access now if they're not aware of that already.
We're not recommending to support.
Yeah, Councillor Marshall.
Yes, I can see the point that there is a case that this should be incorporated in their
ongoing costs, but this is an area where there's clearly a tremendous need.
that's attested by the very eloquent support
by Councilor Yates for this.
And speaking as a recently qualified councilor
with an S, trainee therapist myself,
I can absolutely attest to the value of supervision.
It's absolutely crucial to the delivery of these services.
So I have no doubt that this would have a tremendous impact.
Obviously the problem is that it's only for one year
and what happens in the year after that.
But I wonder whether members might consider supporting this by adding a condition that
the agency look to how they're going to embed this in their offer going forward.
Comments from the rest of the committee.
Councillor Warrell.
I do understand where Councillor Marshall is coming from.
I would not be willing to endorse this.
I think this aspect of this work should actually be considered as core costs or a core service
within the actual program that the organization provides.
I do agree with Councillor Marshall that the supervision element and the support element
is crucial considering the amount of work that's actually being done.
However, I feel that, as I said, for a number of organizations, if you are setting up a
service in this way, that one of the first things you build in with that as in social
work and as an ex -therapist myself, I would think that it is core to the service and not
an additional add -on that we should be funding. So they maybe need to go back and look at
their own funding applications and contracting applications in future to see how this is
actually incorporated.
Yes, Councillor Hedges, did you want to add anything?
No, I just think we're not going to do that.
Good.
Yeah, I think your suggestion is not supported by the majority of the committee.
Councillor Marshall, I think we're agreeing with the officers not to recommend this application.
Okay?
18.
Number 19 is Rules Independent Living, Wandsworth Disability Forum.
Officers are recommending the application.
Ms. Steele?
Yes, so Rules are seeking £10 ,000 for the creation of a £1 disability forum in Wandsworth,
where local disabled people can come together, share their views and co -produce solutions.
They are proposing a launch event and workshop where they will invite deaf and disabled community
in Wandsworth to attend.
They will then have a number of follow -on sessions that will be focused on particular
skills.
They are hoping that between 15 and 20 disabled people will be trained up in coproduction
and campaign skills, and of them, one or two people would be identified as future leaders
and would be equipped with additional skills, so potentially sort of chairing skills in
order to lead the discussions going forward.
The applicant had clearly described the need for the project.
It was well evidenced.
The project will allow, hopefully, that voice of the disabled residents, and they can share
their views and co -produce solutions to the issues that are facing them that us as a council
might not be aware of.
And we are supportive of it.
We had a couple of suggestions around the applicant exploring hybrid meetings to enable
people that couldn't attend in person to still participate and to look at the evaluation
plan to focus upon outcomes as well as outputs that officers were supportive of this application.
Can I just add, not just because I was one of the endorsers, but this is one of the few
applications where citizenship and civic engagement is being addressed full square. Any comments
from the committee? Yeah, Ms. O 'Donnell.
I'm just going to add that one of the flagship elements of London Borough of Culture is the
Liberty Festival, which is a festival celebrating and developed, delivered by disabled, D -deaf
and neurodivergent artists. And part of the call -out that we've just done as part of that
was actually research and development grants
for disabled, neurodivergent, and D -deaf artists
to work with community groups to co -design
and explore different ways of finding solutions
to community problems and sort of community groups.
So just introducing the two groups
and seeing if there's an interesting conversation
and partnerships, potential partnerships
and flow of information both ways.
Yeah, that sounds really sensible can between you and Mr. Steele make sure that that introduction happens. Yeah
Any further comments we in agreement? Yeah, we're the opposite
We agree number 19 number 20
Samuel's charity at home offices are not recommending the steel
Thank you. So Samuel's charity
We are requesting 10 ,000 pounds.
Again, this was an application that originally came
to the Cost of Living Fund, and we had suggested
that they reframe it and come again
to the One's With Grant Fund.
They are requesting part funding for a new post,
which is an at -home care coordinator,
a type of pediatric nurse, to start in January this year,
who will work 25 hours a week to take on a caseload
of 20 seriously and terminally ill children,
and to enable them to
receive care at home rather than within
the hospital setting.
The project was a low priority for the fund,
it was felt, the monitoring evaluation plan
provided was very broad, and it's centered on the benefits
around releasing funds for the NHS
that didn't provide so much information
on the benefits for the children and their families,
although officers can infer that that would have a big impact.
The amount of local children supported was estimated at 50%,
but a definite figure couldn't be provided without knowing
who's on the ward at a particular time.
But we just felt the application wasn't clearly described in how it met the grant fund criteria
and we recommended not to award the project at this time.
Comments from the committee?
Yeah, agreed with the officer's recommendation not to recommend this one.
Okay, we're on to 21.
Wandsworth Mediation Service peer mediation scheme for primary schools in Wandsworth.
Officers are not recommending.
Ms. Steele?
Yes, so Wandsworth Mediation Service was seeking £9 ,000 for their restorative practice scheme
that would work in three schools, which they stated had been on their waiting list, so
Southmead School, Sacred Heart, Roehampton and Westbridge Academy.
They had additionally said that if these schools
were no longer interested, they would have to go out
and find other schools to participate.
As part of the project, they would train EFI pupils
as peer mediators who would resolve low -level disputes
during break times.
The scheme would be implemented between September
and November, but they had also stated they could start
as early as April, and it was unclear.
the timelines around that.
Two months training and then they would start the program.
Each scheme would have 11 hours of training
and training for school staff as well.
The project is a continuation of something
that has already been operated in the borough.
where limited information was provided
on the need for the project,
including an information around the staffing as well.
And it was unclear how engaged the schools were
within the project, and whether they could mobilize
within the timeframe, three months after the grant award.
It was just felt this wasn't fully developed
within the application form,
and officers recommend not to award it at this time.
Councilor Rigby?
Yeah, so I appreciate those comments.
Did officers go back to them to clarify
on those two points that you raised?
Which two points, yeah?
About these two points about it not being clear
How engage the schools were and how quickly they could mobilize?
So
We didn't go back to them on that in the application. They
Listed that the three schools stated were on the waiting list
and that if
They were no longer interested. They would then have to go out and find additional schools to provide the activity and
and it was unclear how long they'd been on the waiting list.
And I can't remember what the other point was, but no, we didn't have time to go back
and clarify with the applicants.
Councillor Wrigley, Carrie.
I mean, I do really value the service of this unit, and just particularly with...
Look, this is something that teachers once upon a time had time to sort out, sort of
issues in the playground, and they absolutely don't now. And having issues between children
can really have a huge impact on the whole class and jeopardize learning and also take
poor behaviors into high school. So I am keen for us, I don't know if we go back and we
ask these questions and they come back again in the next round and they deliver it for
September next year, but I just feel like it's this, they're a solid organization and
they do great work with adults and I think bringing some, and children, and I think we
should sort of take it seriously and ask these questions.
Councillor Marshall.
Yes, I mean speaking as a former primary school teacher myself, I can absolutely endorse all
those comments.
I think it has tremendous potential as a program, but equally I know that things like that,
you try to roll this out into schools with hard -pressed teachers, it's absolutely doomed
to failure without that support.
So I'd absolutely endorse the idea of making sure that this organization has got a school
that is sort of biting their hand off wanting to do it
before, because we will need significant support
from the school to make it work.
Yeah, Councilor Worrell.
Yeah, just taking on board what my fellow councilors
have said, I think there is a lot in this bid
that we should be supporting, and we should be working
with them to, as Councillor Marshall said, work with the school, see what support is
actually available, and as Councillor Ruby said, this is really important work.
In terms of the timeframe, then, I'm quite happy for us to be thinking about, okay, let
it slip to the next grants fund or even the one after to allow them to have the time to
actually identify the need, pick up on issues
that the fellow councils have actually mentioned already,
support them, because I think this is a really valuable
piece of work, and I think we need to be throwing our way
behind it to help succeed.
I see there's quite a lot of support for these projects,
and I wondered if we want to encourage it,
and it comes back, whether there's any help
that Children's Services might give us
in terms of working with the schools
and making sure that it truly supported,
and then come back in the June committee,
which will be in time for the September, November date.
Is that what we're agreed as a committee?
We're not supporting in this round,
but we really are encouraging it to come back,
talk with Children's Services,
and check out whether there is buy -in from the schools.
Yep, yep.
Thank you very much.
21, 22, We Jam Foundation, Wandsworth Rocks, offices are recommending.
Ms. Steele?
Yes, so We Jam Foundation are looking for £9 ,460 for the We Rocks project.
They are seeking to deliver a 10 -week program of workshops to two schools, Franciscan Primary
School and Garrett Park, which is a special school.
Each workshop day will have 10 30 -minute sessions
with an average of six children per session.
So 60 pupils from each school will have the opportunity
to experience being in their own rock band.
And the process is a simplified version.
So children will play one note, but it
will amplify to sound like a rock band in the background.
So they're suggesting that 120 pupils will benefit.
We felt that in aspects of the application
it hadn't been clearly described,
but the project did closely align
with the children and young pupils aims, priority aims.
And it does provide, it's quite innovative
and provides a different experience for children.
And merit could be seen for those involved.
We had suggested that the applicant provides further information on how children within the schools will be selected
to take part in the projects and
We also would like to encourage if awarded the group to explore links with one's with music and other community music projects
To enable those pathways for children to continue to develop their musical interest if that's something you want to explore afterwards
So we're recommending the nine thousand four hundred and sixty pounds requested
Councilor Warrell?
Yes, just a question in terms of the income expenditure and reserves.
Looking at this doesn't really make much sense to me.
And once again, I could be reading it wrong.
I wonder if you could just explain to me a bit more this income expenditure discrepancy
and the issue about reserves and income in advance just to help us?
Yeah, so they provided their accounts up to the end of June 30th of June 2024.
So they had the annual income of £2 ,889 and an expense share which showed £96.
I think I'll have to come back to you on the detail on that, but it's a fairly limited
set of accounts.
They do provide details of their administrative costs and insurance, etc., and they show an
operating profit of $12 ,793.
But I might have to come back to you and seek a view from Matt as well from finance to describe
that to you.
Okay, Councillor Warrell.
Yeah, that would be very useful.
Obviously, you've recommended it, and I'll go with the recommendations, but I'm always
very concerned when I see figures like that suddenly pop up where the money is actually
being spent or if it's being held in reserves, and yet we're giving them a grant for activity.
So I'll wait for clarification for you, and I'll go with the officer's recommendations.
Go with the recommendation.
Yeah, agreed.
So that's number 22.
Just again, an additional ask whether or not the grant condition can just be that again,
it's branded as part of London Fire and Caltrans.
Yeah, yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
Yes, please.
We need, we need.
Good, okay.
We've got through them.
Obviously, we're much quicker without now Mr. Murdoch's retired or some people are away
who should be here in terms of the committee.
So I just wanted to say on the AOB, could we just reflect on looking at the committee
the guidance which we get within all our minutes.
And so there are a number of things I think we need to think about
in terms of the two recommendations for borough -wide projects.
And what we mean by borough -wide projects.
Do we mean it's located in different parts of the borough, or
do we mean people come from all over the borough to one particular area?
And I think Council Rigby suggested we need to look at what we're expecting of
with Councillor recommendations that we don't just have things like it's a good project.
Okay.
Councillor Hedge, do you want to say something about that?
Just an additional.
Yeah, evaluate.
Thanks, Chair.
Just to follow on and also can we make sure with the borough wide ones, because I noticed
there were two here this evening.
I know they didn't go through, but two recommendations from Councillors with full recommendations,
not just I support.
I agree with Councillor Rigby.
Councillor Rigby.
Yeah, so I think you might be able to dig out an email from somewhere where this happened
four or five years ago and some guidance was put and Councillors got really good at writing
stuff and then it's just sort of trailed off.
So yeah, I think it's just reminding them all.
I don't want it just to be about Councillors because I do think we ought to reflect on
whether the project will start within three months.
We don't always apply that strictly,
but maybe that's okay that we don't.
So would you look through the guidance
on one of the grant fund and the other one?
And then can I say that by the end of March,
write to Ms. Steele with any comments
and would you put together any comments
and be part of the review end of the year?
Yeah, just to say that in terms of the next round, the next deadline is in early April,
so we'll have had things live, we'll have the grant conditions live for that first round,
so any changes would need to come into effect after that.
After that.
Apart from that, I think that we've got through in good time.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Everyone.
Thank you.