Grants Overview and Scrutiny Sub-Committee - Thursday 5 June 2025, 7:00pm - Wandsworth Council Webcasting

Grants Overview and Scrutiny Sub-Committee
Thursday, 5th June 2025 at 7:00pm 

Agenda

Slides

Transcript

Map

Resources

Forums

Speakers

Votes

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

Hello, good evening everyone and welcome to this meeting. My name is Councillor Allen
and I'm the chair of the grants overviews and scrutiny subcommittee
members of the members of the committee I would now call your names in
alphabetical order please switch on your microphone to confirm your attendance
councillor edges Thank You chair present Lindsay hedges
Balaam Ward. Thank you. Councillor Marshall. Present. Councillor Mayorkas. Present.
Councillor Jorigbe is modulated. Yeah. Councillor Worrall. Present. Apologies for
absence have been received from Councillor Hamilton and Councillor Mrs. Graham.
We have officers present who will introduce themselves as they address the committee.
Declaration of Interests.
Are there any declarations of either pecuniary or other non -registrable interests?
If so, please declare any interest.
Quoting the item and paper number in which you have interest and describing the nature

1 Declaration of Interests

of your interests, including whether or not you will be taking part in the item.

2 Minutes - 30th April 2025

Minutes of 30 April 2025. Does the Committee agree the minutes of the previous meeting
held on 30th of April 2025 and come be signed as a correct records. Thank you.
Can I ask Miss Steele to introduce the item?
Thank you Chair. I'm Harriet Steele, the Volunstector Grants and Partnership Manager
for one's of Council and
So this paper relates to round 30 of the ones with grant funds and that's the first round of this financial year
currently we have three hundred and nineteen thousand five hundred of pounds available and
We received 16 eligible applications in this round

3 Wandsworth Grant Fund, Round 29 (Paper No. 25-153)

in total those applications were asking for
just over a hundred and eighteen thousand pounds and
and officers are recommending that awards are made to eight organizations for a total of £62 ,895.
Also, just to note in the paper, decisions for award for this Wandsworth grant fund,
as recommended by this committee, will be delegated to the Assistant Chief Executive.
And then also to note that within this grant round, the arts and culture theme is still
being handled separately as part of the London Borough of Culture and will be considered
by the London Borough of Culture champions.
Therefore, there are no applications relating to arts and culture within this paper.
We're now going onto the paper.
So can I ask miss still again to speak to paper number one that is first is partner is called
scout group
Thank you, so the application from the first East partner scout group we're requesting
5 ,580 pounds they wanted funding to refurbish their existing scout hall
Including the front wall and facade which have been damaged over a number of years due to water ingress
and
The officer recommendation is not to award on this occasion.
The applicant hadn't clearly described how the project met the criteria.
There was limited information about the refurbishment work and what impact that would have on the
ability to carry out activity.
The need for the project hadn't been clearly described.
and the organization had a reasonable level of reserves and it wasn't clear
from the application why they were unable to use some of those reserves
towards the refurbishment so it was recommended not to award this project
any question all right Councillor ages yeah thank you chair and thank you miss
steel for your helpful update and I was just wondering and this that questions
actually from Councilor Graham.
She would like to know what help was offered to the Scout group with this application.
And if not any, could we help them next time around so we can bring this one back.
And looking at their reserves, compared to some of the other organizations in here that
we are awarding grants to, which are in the millions, I kind of think this one actually,
you know, it's much less than that.
And I think the Scouting group is a really good organization and helps youths with doing something really good.
So if we can consider this one or even help them next time, that would be really great. Thank you.
Yes, thank you. So the application was received, know how it was asked for from the Scouts,
but we could go back after this committee and offer them some more support around this application.
And regarding the level of reserves, I agree it's a smaller level of, there's other organizations
that have more reserves.
I think it was more about they hadn't clearly sort of described why they couldn't use the
reserves rather than the level.
But we can definitely go and help them for a further application.
Any other?
All right.
So, do we pass it?
Agreed?
All right, thank you.
Next on, paper number two, that is, is it Abonye Residential Association?
Can you please speak to the paper?
Thank you.
This is an application from the Abonye Residence Association requesting £4 ,000.
The funding was requested towards two -hour sessions for children and their parents and
carers for 48 weeks, providing activities that were based on early years foundation
stages.
Some of the activities would take place outdoors, weather permitting, and some within the Aboyan
Commuter Center.
The officer recommendation is not to award funding on this occasion.
The applicant hadn't clearly described how the projects met the thematic area.
There was limited detail about what sort of activities and content the sessions would
have, and the need for the project hadn't been clearly described along with the outputs
and outcomes.
So it was felt on this occasion not to grant funding towards this project.
Any questions, any contribution?
So is it agreed?
Okay, all right.
All right, should we go move on to the third paper?
And fitness for all CIC?
Can you please introduce?
Yes, so this is an application from fitness for all CIC requesting 10 ,000 pounds.
The applicant is currently in the process of transforming an old carpet shop into a
community gym and wellness hub, and they were requesting funding towards purchasing equipment
for the gym, for example, Olympic weights, barbells,
cardio equipment, et cetera.
Office of recommendation at this time is not to award funding.
The applicant had not clearly described
the need for the project.
Within the eligibility criteria, the referral pathways
and how the community element of this project would be set up
wasn't clearly defined.
It was also unclear what the cost model would be.
It's the element they were looking for was a Robin Hood model,
so they would have fee -paying members who would then support a community offer,
but it was unclear what that would look like.
And the applicant had already secured some funding towards equipment,
so this equipment would just be enhancing that offer.
So it was felt at this time with the information provided not to support a grant.
for this. Any question from members? All right, is it agreed on? All right, thank you. So
we move on to the fourth one that is Airbus. Can you please speak to the paper? Yes, so
this is an application from Airbus looking for £9 ,570. This was an application that
came in the previous round and members asked us to have another look at this and work with
I'm pleased to say that they took all the recommendations on board that we made.
The applicant clearly describes now how the project will meet the needs of the thematic
area and also the community.
And they have established really good relationships with local schools.
So officers felt that it was a strong application and would like to support it to the amount
of £9 ,570.
Good.
All right.
Steve, please answer that.
Just a question of clarification.
In the grants, it says that they are looking to apply
for consideration funding, and one of them
is possibly Peabody.
Now, we know Peabody is notoriously difficult
in terms of the funding that they provide
and also the way they're supporting local residents
at the moment.
So I'm just wondering how we're going to help them
in relation to that application to Peabody,
or how we can support them in relation to that.
Because I think it's a good project, but I think Peabody, in its current situation,
is not that responsive and the organization might need further help.
So, Ms. Still, do you want to respond to that, please?
Yes. So, from the application, as far as I understand it,
the organization are well linked in with Peabody and work on some of their other estates.
And Peabody are providing the venue for them free of charge.
So I think they have some connections, but I'm happy to work with them and see how we can support them on this.
So do we agree on this?
All right, thank you.
So we move on to the next paper, that's paper number five, CDARS.
Can you please speak to the paper?
Thank you, this is an application from the Community Drug and Alcohol Recovery Service, or CDERS.
They were requesting £9 ,740 for a project working with their service users,
who are generally those recovering from substance misuse or with poor physical and mental health.
And the project was to provide cycling sessions for them,
two weeks of training and then going out and about
on bicycles across London.
This is, it's starting up a project
that was previously running in the borough,
and I think it was funded by TFL.
The funding ended and they were looking
to sort of start the project up again.
The applicant hadn't sort of clearly described
the health and wellbeing elements of the project
and how that met the thematic area.
Again, they didn't sort of describe the need
for the project other than they'd had the project before
and it ceased because of lack of funding.
It was also unclear whether the people using the bicycles
would have access to cycles outside of those hours.
So a lot of the project was about building confidence
to cycle, but it was felt if they didn't have access
to bikes outside of the two hours a week,
then that was sort of limited benefit.
So on balance it was felt not to fund this project at the time.
Yeah, go ahead.
Yeah, thank you Chair.
I was just going to say it's a real shame that we can't help this particular initiative.
Because I think it does say in here, it's quite clear that it's building confidence and
mental health issues, and it's getting people moving again.
So it's quite a shame that that wasn't noted as the health point.
But it would be really great if we could also help this applicant come back again, because
I think it's a really great initiative, and it would be a shame if we didn't help them.
Thank you.
Yeah, Julie, please.
Yeah.
And also, because we have so many, like, lime and forest bikes, I think it's taken away
the barrier of people not owning their own bikes.
So that could be something they put in when it comes back.
How people could be encouraged to
continue riding with the higher bikes.
I see.
But just, I also, I think that the council
has its own stock of bikes as well
that are like refurbished ones.
Certainly they do for children,
but I'm sure there are for adults.
So again, maybe that's something that we could
speak to them about and make use of the services.
And also, I guess, see if there was any progression
from if this happened and they did this,
if they could then go on to an adult cycle training course
offered by the council, so that it could be a progression
through to that and then meet other people as well.
Please go ahead.
In a future application, it'd be useful
if the application also explained a bit more
about the relationship with SLAM and We Are You
and St. Mungo's, but all three organizations
have a lot of activity programs associated
with their organizations, and the interrelationship
would be useful to explain in this one as well.
All right, so I think what I also want to say
is is it possible to help them so that
the next round of funding, you support them
in writing a proper bit because sometimes, you know, they don't really know how to put
what they are looking for in the paper.
They have it in their mind and trying to put it on paper.
It is difficult for them.
So is it possible you can help them?
Yes, that's no problem.
We do run Meet the Funder sessions which go through the application form in detail, but
I can separately meet with the group and discuss their application going forward.
I also thought it's a good application which needs to be considered so if you can write back to them and say alright can you put in application for the next one but we're promising we're going to support you in it and then we're going to give it to you because so yeah thank you.
We go on to the next one it's contracts that is paper number six.
Thank you. Yeah, so contacts are looking for £4 ,982 for family fun days.
They are looking to deliver two accessible family days out over the school summer holidays for families with disabled children.
The trips would benefit up to 95 participants from Wandsworth and they're looking at taking them to the Brighton Sea Life Centre.
officers felt that the project had clearly described how they met the priorities.
They demonstrated the needs and the benefits of the particular cohort they're working with.
They've secured match funding in terms of complementary tickets to the Sea Life Centre.
And they had clearly described how there's a gap and accessible family days are limited within the borough.
and they seemed well linked in in order to provide that.
So officers felt for the amount of money they were asking for,
it clearly met the criteria.
All right.
Lindsay.
Sorry, thank you.
I think this is a brilliant initiative,
and I fully support it.
My only query is, and it goes back to the first one
that we looked at for the scout group,
is that the reserves are very healthy.
And I wonder whether they actually need the money,
whereas like the scout group probably would.
But that's just my only point.
I fully support the application.
Any other person?
Yeah, just in terms of the reserves,
they do have a lot of reserves,
but I guess compared with the other group,
they have got a high turnover.
They've got an expenditure of over $9 million a year.
So in relation to the turnover, the reserves aren't that high.
And I think that is also a sort of outcome that the fact that there are national charities
as well.
So they do work.
But they're happy to look at reserves again in more detail for other applications going
forward.
I want to know where are they based?
I'd have to look that up.
I don't know exactly where they're based, but they have been working in one sweat for
a number of years and they are well linked in.
Okay.
So we are agreeing on it?
Agreed.
Thank you.
So we move on to the next paper.
Paper number seven, frames of TSM.
Please speak to the people.
So the Friends of Trinity St. Mary's,
C of E primary school are seeking funds of 7 ,375 pounds
to launch an outdoor learning center at the school.
This is a variation on an application that was
brought a couple of rounds ago.
So they're looking for funding to sort of create
an outdoor learning space by renovating
an area of the playground, marketing volunteer training, and then evaluating the project.
It was felt that the applicant hadn't clearly described how the project met the children
and young people's thematic area.
It also appeared that the school would be the main beneficiary with limited evidence
of other community, wider community benefits, and that other nurseries or community organizations
would be able to use the space.
And the project plan didn't include a clear timeline on how they would collect data or
identify who was going to monitor the project and how they would understand whether it had
been successful.
So it was felt not to award funding on this occasion.
Any questions?
Okay, Steve.
Just an observation.
Application, applications like this come up on a regular basis in terms of something in
relation to being provided in the school.
We turn the majority of them down because they are for the benefit of the school per
se, not the pupils necessarily.
Could I ask that the guidelines be made clearer around how to demonstrate that it's actually
more for the community and the pupils.
Because as I said, this is a regular process,
and it's a regular process that you turn down.
And I wouldn't want schools to be wasting their time
putting in applications that don't meet
that particular criteria.
So some further clarity might be useful.
Hello.
You want to respond to that?
Yes, we could definitely add that into the guidance notes.
And as far as I'm aware, the school
Didn't come back from the last turned down application for any further advice before submitting this application
Other question all right, so is it agreed on all right. Thank you. All right. Let's move on to the next paper that is
Ibis talk place school, can you please speak to the paper?
Yes, this is an application from a stock place school seeking
£2 ,230. This is to continue a project that was previously run by Spencer Links and they provide
hockey training for about 30 children in years five and six who attend Alton Primary, Roehampton
Church School and Heathmere Primary and the funding is to support them with a hockey program
where they minibus in the children from the schools,
provide hockey training, provide all the equipment
and sort of a snack or sort of tea.
And officers felt that the project clearly met the criteria.
It's got a focus on children from lower socioeconomic
and minority ethnic backgrounds.
The children, the cost per child worked out about £74 which seemed good value for money
and the school had already thought about how to look at the sustainability of the project
going forward.
So it's felt to award the funding on this occasion.
Any questions?
Oh, I see.
Please go ahead.
Yes, something we've just noticed in discussion on our side here is the, and goes back to
what you were saying, Councillor Hager, is the reserves issue with a project like this,
is that correct in terms of the unrestricted reserves that's actually down there?
Or is it a typo?
I can double check that.
I'm not sure if that is a typo.
I think that probably is the amount of money. I can come back to you on that.
Yeah I don't think it is a typo I think I think it's because the trust they had
it they had sort of described how how that funding is sort of will be
invested in development plans for the school estates.
But no, that wasn't a typo.
It is 58.
The reason, Mark, this comes up once again time and time again
that we have organizations with massive reserves making
applications to us for a pittance.
2 ,000 pounds is nothing in comparison
to the income and expenditure.
And it feels, I know the recommendations to pass this,
but it feels uncomfortable that we're
huge organizations like this money
when other organizations are really struggling
and desperate for, but maybe we need to go away
and think about that issue and that criteria
in terms of organizations applying for a token amount
of money when they've got such huge amounts.
Councilman Mankiewicz.
Thank you, Chair.
I guess, yeah, the question is on this one is,
obviously it's an amazing project,
and it obviously helps the people that it needs to help.
And the school itself is not here to defend themselves,
but I guess the question is,
were they not to get this grant,
would they do this kind of project anyway
as part of their CSR?
And if not, then do we need to fund this?
I don't know, as Steve says, it feels odd
that we're helping a private organization
that very financially successful organization
to do their CSR, which is then good for them,
but they're not actually giving the benefit
directly to the community.
Yeah, it's a question, because, yeah,
until recently, the VAT was waived on private schools
on the basis that they were supposed to be doing this
with the VAT money.
So I'm just confused about why they're doing that.
I'm just, yeah, because they're still getting the VAT relief up until January, aren't they?
Is that when they have to start paying VAT?
Do you want to speak?
I don't know about the VAT issue, but in terms of the amount they're asking for, it's towards
a wider budget.
So they've got a total project cost of 7 ,730, and the 2 ,230 they're asking for is towards
that sort of wider list.
And they haven't described exactly what the funding would go for, but it would kind of
go into the pot to make up the total needed to cover the different elements within the
budget. Mr. if they haven't really described what the budget is what the
money is going to be really useful why do we why do we have to give it to them
because there are other charities who have really declared it's what they're
gonna use the money for but we are not giving them so we need to know more. So
so they've described that the budget items they've given a detailed list of
the budget items but they haven't specifically said what the two thousand
230 pounds will go towards within the wider budget. So in the budget they've got things like
hockey sticks, minibus, minibuses to and from the different schools. They've got DBS check staff to
accompany the minibuses, gum shields, shin pads, those kind of things. So they haven't specifically
said that this will go towards hockey sticks, but it's part of, makes part of that wider budget.
Yeah, yeah.
Colleague, do we want to approve this?
Yeah.
It's difficult to know because, I mean,
no, not really because obviously the project has to get,
like, if it's all built up and therefore it wouldn't happen
without it, then obviously that's not an outcome that
I guess we'd want collectively.
But there are some serious questions about it.
I don't know how that is resolved.
Okay, alright.
I was just going to say that when speaking with the school, they did say that if they
didn't get the full budget, the full total budget they're looking for, they would look
at how they could cut costs.
So rather than having hockey sticks, individual hockey sticks for each child, they would have
a pool that they would share, as opposed to having their own sort of personalized hockey
sticks.
Thanks.
I think it's a really tough one.
If it is really for children from socioeconomic backgrounds, then it's really difficult to
refuse.
But I'm really, this is a really tough one.
And I'm guided by all of my colleagues here on this one.
Thank you.
Jack, do you want to speak?
I'm just trying to think of like a constructive way forward. I haven't been on this committee for ages. I don't know
Yeah, I don't know what the options are really or if there are any if it is just straight yes or no in which case
I think we know the answer and if it's not then
Maybe we could look at other options
All right, so what's going to be our decision?
Are we going to agree on it or do we want to refuse it?
Do you want us to take a vote on it?
What do you want us to do?
I don't want this to end up in a situation where they're not getting hockey sticks.
So I think we'll approve it but I think we just would we just want a bit more digging
around when someone comes to us with 58 million pound next time.
Yeah all right so is it agreed?
All right noted.
The next paper, paper number nine is Rohamton.
Can you please speak to the paper?
Yes, this is an application from our Hamilton.
They are requesting £8610.
And this is towards delivery of a program of outreach events in Roehampton, partnering
with local community organizations to try and increase volunteering and support community
cohesion and engagement.
So predominantly they are looking for small equipment items that would enable them to
attend various outreach events.
So they're looking for things like tables and chairs and gazebos, et cetera, which as
well as using for the events which they've mentioned in the application could also be
learned out to other organizations locally.
They are, they've clearly demonstrated how they meet the citizenship and civic engagement
thematic area they're well linked into the local community and they clearly
described the need for the project within the application officers are
recommending that an award of eight thousand six hundred and ten pounds is
awarded subject to all the permissions being in place for the events that they
want to be involved with and them linking in with the outreach the
resident engagement officer for the homes once were to ensure that the
events that they are describing are widely publicised in the area.
Any questions from the committee?
So do we agree on it?
All right, thank you.
So we move on to the next paper.
Is it Rathbone, ABC?
Can you please speak to the paper?
So this is an application from Rathbone Amateur Boxing Club.
They are requesting a grant of £6 ,430.
This would be to deliver one boxing skills and one boxing fitness session a week.
And they've said that they'll work with local organizations to recruit participants for
the projects.
And this would provide six months of free training for up to 30 young people.
Officers felt within the application, unfortunately, the need for the project hadn't been clearly
demonstrated.
The project, although it was a new cohort, appeared to be part of that existing activity,
which is a low priority for the funds.
And the monitoring approach lacked clarity on how they would measure the impact of the
project.
Therefore, it was felt that we would recommend not to award on this occasion.
Why any question from committee?
All right, Councilor Riebe.
Yeah.
Just because I met one of the people that are involved with DVAS recently, so they were
talking about the project.
So they didn't mention that they'd had any conversation with them or just that it wasn't
articulated well enough.
It says it's unclear if they've consulted with DVAS.
Yeah, yeah.
So within the application, they described that they would be linking with DVAS to select
young people, but it was unclear whether they'd actually had a conversation with DVAS around
that or whether it was just something they planned to do.
Is that something we could have asked?
Do we go back while we're in the middle of deciding, if that was one of the standout
ones?
Because I think the idea that it's not clear why we need this is,
well, it is clear because, you know, young people just need activities.
And that's something that, you know, we don't need evidence of that
because it's just obvious.
But if this is just about them not clearly saying they've spoken to DVAS,
could they go back and substantiate how that connection
with DVASs and put it back again.
And so where we do have time, we do try and go back to organizations, but there's a lot
of applications that we need to get through and a limited amount of time to be able to
query.
I think one of the key elements was the fact that it was part of their ongoing activities,
existing projects, and therefore that's sort of a low priority for the fund.
And so that sort of played an element in the recommendation as well.
Any other question from committee?
Yeah, I think I was also.
Could we have this one come back with some small support from the team on how to provide
their fiddance. Okay, I think what I want because of our charities as well I know
it's so difficult in articulating when you're writing sometimes you want to say
something which you can't really articulate it also. Is it possible for
once Red Council for us to support charity organizations to put in do the
proper bid writing because sometimes is it possible for them also to do like this video
instead of putting in writing as well?
Would you accept that?
Because I'm sure this is a good project and maybe they might have had a conversation with
the bus, but in putting into writing they didn't state it, put it clearly in that way.
So this will be going against them at this moment.
So as part of the application process, once we receive an application, we do go and seek
views from lead officers who have more of a wider on the ground knowledge about particular
areas to get the sort of background and the wider context.
So we don't base an application purely on what is written in the application.
For me to do try and understand that wider context.
So if a group hasn't clearly described in the application
what it is they want to do, we try and create that parity
by getting more of a rounded picture.
Ciaran, I want to speak, so yeah.
Ciaran, please go ahead.
Yeah, thank you.
I think Harriet alluded to this earlier
in terms of the number of applications that come through.
Councillors may remember in a previous round
we had like 52 applications.
I think with the one grants officer that we got,
it can be a challenge for officers,
and I don't think they should be put in a position where they,
outside of this meeting, pick and choose who,
which organizations they go back to,
to clarify, to support, to write the bids.
But as Harriet says, we do run those funding sessions
where they get to provide the advice,
and generally I think we can look broadly
around how we provide training to the voluntary community sector,
around bid writing, et cetera.
I think also Harriet said that we do liaise
with relevant teams like Children's Services or Housing,
who would have familiarity with this.
I think it's for this committee
that if they're seeing something
and they feel that it's something that can come back
and they want more information
then we can certainly take that back.
I think it's just a challenge for officers
to sort of go through a list of 16, 17,
sometimes 30, 40 bids to then keep going back
to individual organizations to get clarification,
to help write, et cetera.
I think that would be quite challenging in terms of workloads and pressure.
Do we agree on that?
So do we agree to a decision of the officers on this paper?
Okay, thank you.
All right.
The next paper is paper number 11, Regenerate.
Please can you speak to the paper?
Yes, so this is an application from Regenerate.
They're seeking 9 ,963 pounds.
So they're requesting funding to run three community outreach
festivals with the sports and fitness focus this summer.
They will be run with assistance from Al Rohampton,
and they will be targeted at young people and their families
on the Alton Estate in Rohampton,
as well as the Lennox Estate and the Ashburton Estate in Putney.
The offices felt that the applicant had clearly described the need for the projects.
They've got a track record of delivering similar projects, so it was felt that they had the
experience and expertise to carry them out, and they had a clear plan to monitor and evaluate
the outcomes of the festivals and sort of evaluate the work that had been done.
Officers are recommending the amount of 9 ,963 subject to all the permissions that they need
to hold the festivals being in place and also subject to them working with the resident
engagement officer for Homes for Wandsworth to ensure the events are widely publicized.
Okay, so we've got reference to a petting zoo here, which is like several issues with
the petting zoo.
It's not from an animal rights point of view, paying for petting zoo in 2025, I don't think
is something that we should be funding.
There's lots of evidence about how these animals are treated
and how they feel about being part of entertainment.
It's kind of like the last relic of the circus.
And they're also really expensive.
And I'd suggest that they could do some better stuff
with the money they were going to put aside for the petting zoo.
I mean, I'm not sure if we have any council regulations on this, but we certainly wouldn't
encourage any type of zoo activity, would we?
It's just such a weird thing.
OK, Councillor Wourow.
I agree with Councillor Rigby on this one.
What I would like to suggest is possibly the money that would be used to pay for petting
who could actually be redirected to putting on the festival for an extra hour, because
three to six is actually a really short time, the time they're going to spend setting everything
up and to attract people. So maybe we can look at maybe how some of the money can be
reused slightly for an extended amount of time. I love the idea. I think this is really
good. It encourages community engagement, especially for young people. But the timeframe
seems really really short so maybe some reconsideration around that.
Councillor Edgis. Thanks chair, I agree with Councillor Rigby and Councillor
Worrall on this one. It was just a quick question about the the award we did, sorry
the not awarded recommendation back in January. I can't remember was this the
same one that we asked or was it a different one? My memory's gone, thank you.
Ms. Dhillon, do you want to speak?
You want to respond?
No, I take aboard the points raised and depending on what the committee suggests, we can go
and liaise with the group around the possibility of extending it for an hour.
Any other question?
So do we agree?
All right, let's agree.
Move on to the next paper, paper number 12, that is Roselyn Park FC.
Can you please speak to the paper, Miss Till?
Yes, Roselyn Park Football Club are seeking a grant of £9 ,950.
This is for their fast -forward Putney project.
They're requesting funding for a six month period for the summer school terms where 60
children in year seven would be involved in weekly multi -sport sessions.
Separately, they're also proposing support or information sessions, so things like cooking
and healthy eating, parenting, education, et cetera,
for the families.
Officers felt that the applicant had clearly described
how they met the thematic priorities.
The delivery plans seemed clear and realistic,
and they described the need for the project
based on their experience.
Although the project has taken place previously,
this particular iteration has been delivered in schools
where the applicants not previously worked.
Therefore, officers felt that on balance it was a good proposal
and were keen to award the amount of £9 ,950.
All right. Yes, Steve.
Just a query in terms of, and going back to the paper and unrestricted reserves.
There's a negative here, and we've had organizations with negative reserves before, and we've given
them grants to take them on board.
It's the auditor's note that's actually included in here that I find quite interesting.
So I suppose it's a small amount of money in terms of the decision, but this whole statement
about the unrestricted reserves does worry me a bit and I suppose some further clarification
of that and what the audit is actually saying would be quite useful.
Yes so officers felt that the award should be subject to the applicant providing their
latest annual accounts so the accounts listed for the year ends June 2023 but they are in
the process of finalizing the June 2024 accounts so officers are proposing that the award is
subject to those accounts being provided and evaluated by officers to understand the financial
position of the organization.
So do we agree on this?
All right, so agreed.
We move on to the next paper that is paper number 13, Sports for Health.
Can you please speak to the paper?
Yes, Sports for Health are requesting £10 ,000 and this is funding for a new project which
aims to provide a series of 26 walks across Wandsworth over a year engaging between 30
or 35 different older people who are 60 years or older.
And the walks aim to reduce social isolation, provide a benefit to people's physical and
mental health, increase their social networks, et cetera.
It was felt that the need for the project had not been clearly described, that the activities
were fairly limited to a small cohort of people, and the opportunities seemed to be quite limited
within the current beneficiaries of the group, so they weren't proposing to extend this out
to the wider area.
It was unclear whether they had awareness of and had linked in to understand the wider
offer of walks and enable run currently.
The applicant was also requesting a large proportion of the funding towards staff costs,
which would be a low priority for the fund.
Some unbalanced officers felt that at this time the application should not be supported.
It's a lot of money for a walk when there's lots of voluntary organisations doing, I mean,
yeah, I just can't imagine how they'd spend that.
So do we agree on this?
Agreed.
All right, that's good.
We move on to paper number 14, that is Tara Theatre.
Can you please speak to the paper?
Yes, so Tara Theatre are requesting £7 ,589 .70 towards a project called, which is an extension
of their Meeting Your Neighbours initiative.
So the activity would be a two -hour session between September and December where they
would open up to Wandsworth residents to engage with a sort of arts project, arts and social
isolation project within the theatre.
Officers felt that the project had met the thematic area.
They were using established method to understand that the project would be successful.
it was building on knowledge that they'd got from previous funding and
but it was sufficiently different from what we'd funded them previously that it
wasn't seen as duplicating what we previously funded and the office
offices were minded to support a recommendation of seven thousand five
hundred and ninety pounds okay counselor with me please yeah so I
I remember around six years ago when Tora Arts was struggling and I think we gave them,
I think the mayor gave them 25 ,000 and we gave them 25 ,000 or it might have been a bit
more but they got at least 50 ,000 pound and I remember it was questioned back then because
it was such an incredible amount of money and it was on the basis that they
were going to put on a lot of they were going to open the theater up to the
community because it's it was not being used by the community. Um so I wondered
if since they got all that funding have have they ramped up their work with the
community and because we're just continuing to to fund it through this.
I mean it's a great offer, it's a great theatre, but the thing the whole thing was the 50 grand
combined from Sadiq Khan and from us was that they would just generally be doing these
community things anyway.
I'm not aware of whether they've increased our activity or not.
And Q and want to speak so Q and please go ahead.
Thank you. I think unfortunately for the committee here it's about the decision as to whether fund
funding this initiative specifically. We can obviously just outside of this meeting and
outside of this grant application go back and make that inquiry and maybe get back to
you, Councillor, around any expanded activities they do in the community. But I think for
the purpose of this committee it's really, you know, whether we're going to be whether
you're going to agree or not agree this particular initiative for them.
Yeah completely agree. It's just I haven't seen them
crop up on anything for so many years and it just reminded me of the
The sort of controversy of that money, but then so I would love to know what they do in the community
We can come back to you on that outside of the decision about this fund
All right, so do we agree on them? Okay. All right, that's good
So we move on to the next paper paper number 15
Work and play scrap store
Penny miss can you please speak to the paper?
Yes, so this is the work in place scrap store seeking funding for hazel fest 2025
requesting
2370 pounds they're requesting funding towards the hazel fest which is on the 22nd of June and
2 till 5 in the afternoon on the hazel hearse the state and
and the event will include craft stores, live performances and free food for the community.
It's an annual event which has been delivered by the Work and Play scrap store for a number of years.
The applicant within the application applied under the Children and Young People's thematic area
and they hadn't clearly described how they'd meet that with the project.
it was unclear if the or if and how that the
the festival will be promoted in the local community.
The need for the project hadn't been clearly demonstrated
and as Hazel Fest is an annual event,
it's an existing activity which would be a low priority
for the funds.
So it was not,
the recommendation was not to award on this occasion.
Separately, the applicant had also previously applied
to the ones with art fringe earlier in the year
and have been turned down for that as well.
The officer recommendation is not to award on this instance.
All right committee, what do we think?
Agreed, all right.
So we agreed we still I would move on to the last paper
That is youth better see kind of please speak to the people
Yes, this is an application from youth fantasy for their young influences project. They're seeking 10 ,000 pounds
And this would enable them to recruit and engage a group of 20 young people
Age between 16 and 25 years who would then be supported with training and activities that would
equip them to represent their peers in youth services in Battersea and the wider borough.
Officers felt that the project was in line with the council's youth strategy
and they clearly described the needs for the project. The Battersea Young Influencers would
be able to help development of services within the community and the borough and
the needs of the young people would be responded to through this.
Officers felt it clearly met the criteria, but the grant, we're proposing to award the full amount,
subject to the applicant providing a more detailed plan of the activity to be used when monitoring and evaluating the project.
Thank you chair. Mr. Steele, I think this is a really great application. I fully support
it and I've just got I feel bad for asking this question but it really is a minor point
and it is more procedural. You know when we say it's either the primary ward or we say
if it's borough wide we need to have two councillors because we've got a slight nuance here it's
which is probably more of a collective rather than award.
I wondered whether something like this, maybe we should just agree going forward,
if we have like a constituency there or like Partny or Tooting,
that maybe we should have two councillors endorsing it.
I don't know, it's a minor point, but I fully agree with the application. Thank you.
Hello, Warren.
In previous meetings we actually had agreed that if an application comes and covers more
than one ward, we'd have two council endorsements.
So actually it is in the guidance documents there, so if we could just reinforce that
moving forward, that would be great.
Are there still notes on that?
Or I thought, do we agree on this paper?
All right, that's good.
Thank you so much.
Okay, Councillor Warren, please speak.
I know we've come to the end of the meeting, but I just want to take us back to an earlier
conversation where I once noted that we had raised the issue of looking at the reserves
of organisations when they come in and looking at the guidance around that.
Taking on board that we had two Councillors that also raised the issue that we don't want
to be held hostage to fortune, that if we say that they've got huge reserves that they're
and we turn them down, the program's not going to continue.
But I think I would ask the grants team and Karen to actually just go away and think a
bit more clearly and relook at the issue of organizations with millions of pounds of reserves
making applications to what is technically a very small amount of money.
All right, thank you.
I guess everything is noted.
Thank you so much, Councillor Lecce.
And any other question?
All right, thank you.
This concludes the meeting.
Webcast Finished - 0:56:09
Good day.