Transcript

Could you hear me for that? Yeah. Yeah. Friends 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. Present. Councillor Joe Rigby. Present. Councillor Stephen Worrell. Present. So apologies for absence have been received from Councillor Jack Mailcast, 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 one, declarations of interest. Are there any declarations of either pecuniary, other registrable or non-registrable interests? No declarations? No declarations? Okay. Thank you. On to item two. 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? I agree. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We're on to the main substance of the meeting, which is item three, Wandsworth Grants Fund, round 28. So it's the third round for this financial year and the final round of the 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? 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 for the 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? Yeah. Councillor Hedges. 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 LBOC 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 how that came about. Or we can address that separately outside of this committee. Thank you. Mr. O'Donnell, would you like to respond? Thank you. Yes, sorry, I've literally just finished that meeting. Yes. So, yes. My apologies for being late. We overran by four minutes. So, the committee paper in July 2024 on London Borough of Culture, that 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, joining the LBOC local champions group. So, 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 sort of 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, you know, we're piloting new ways of working, and, you know, if it works, then those are things that, you know, 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 is on the website? It's on the website. Can you put your... Could you put your... I couldn't hear what you're saying. Oh, thank you. Yeah, 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, you know, 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 those 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 something that's supplementary, and that's, this is rather early and we hope that 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 bit of 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'd 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 or 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, so there's always going to be a bit of overlap. Are there any other questions on the 2501 paper? No? Are we happy to agree the recommendations one, two, and three, subject to the decisions that we're going to 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 the 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 Rose Hall in Nine Elms over the school holidays. And we're recommending to support the application. It's a well-established organisation. It fits well with the children and 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, 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 organisation, section, 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 to be 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 Worrell. Thank you, Chair. I'm happy to endorse this. Just a couple of provisors, I suppose, and a suggestion. Reading through this, the mobilisation 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 mobilisation 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 what would be is it would be great if officers could feedback that they've gone through and clarified the issues around recruitment and also the evaluation process. And just, as I said, you've raised it as a concern, so it would be nice to see what the results of that would be. Any comment, Ms. Steele? No, that's fine. You can do that. Yeah. Can I suggest you do that? And partly because Councillor Worrell 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 Aboyan Residents Association. Yes, so the Aboyan Residents Association are looking for £2,937, and this is for exercise sessions for older residents and an 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. Okay. I'd be very interested, although I don't live in the right area. Yeah, but I would qualify apart from that. Any comments from the committee? No? Supported? Yeah. Thank you very much. Number three. Art Burst. Abast, is it? Yeah, holiday play scheme. Yeah, so Art Burst 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 Browage Gardens Community Centre in St. Trenton's Hill, and they're looking at dates over August for the sessions. They are announced a borough provider, 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 full intersector community organisations and 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 has taken place for the children in 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 time frame. 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. Councillor Warren. 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 organisation to try and clarify those and then bring it back to the next grants round in June as a reapplication. As I said, I think there's a lot of stuff in here that should be very good for the local community there. As I said, you've raised areas of concern, but it'd be good to work with them to clarify that and then invite them back. Yes, Councillor Rigby. Yes. I agree with that. I also think we'd 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. Yeah. So, Mr. 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 the holiday project in August. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Good. Thank you. So, we're on to number four, Bags of Taste. Councillor Hedges, do you want to speak? Yeah. Go on. You were introduced. Sorry. Sorry. I'm jumping the gun. You're not recommending this. 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 sort of children and family support, whereas this is directed more at sort of 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 is a continuation of an existing program, it's a lower priority for the fund. 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 fund for this project and also a wide 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 has 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. Councillor 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. And 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. Mr. Worrell. 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's 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. Yes, 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 and it's recommended at a reduced rate. Yes, yes. Ms. Keel, would you like to introduce it? Yes, sure. So this is from Balance Support CIO and they are requesting funding to re-equip the sensory suite at the Church Lane Day Centre in Tooting and to create an additional sensory resource at their open door day centre in Southfields. They're requesting £4,386 and we're recommending £3,942. The application, again, it's one, it's around sort of supporting their existing activities. They already, as they state, have a sensory centre 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. 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 amended, recommended award of £3,942. Commissioner, are you in agreement? Yeah, 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, of interest. What the details have notified previous council funding in the last two years. And there's a £2.2 million amount. I just wondered what that was for. That was all. Thank you. Mr. Hill, can you help us with that? I'd need to get more. Yeah, 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 the details. Yeah, yeah. The rest of the committee, you're in agreement, yes? Yeah, okay. Thank you very much. So we're on to number six, Battersea Arts Centre. Wrestle, lads, wrestle. Not recommended. Yes. Ms. Steele. Thank you. Yes, so this is Battersea Arts Centre. They're seeking £6,000 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-defence, so there'll be four evening workshops over four days, and then performance. Officers felt that it was a fairly limited duration and a small number of people taking part and would have limited value in terms of health and well-being, which is the thematic areas 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. I'm 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 officers not to recommend. Okay, 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, and we felt that at that 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 lunch and 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. Councillor 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. The committee is in agreement. Yeah, thank you very much. Seven, no. Number eight, CARAS, unlocking potential through adult ESOL and community integration support. She's recommended. Yes, Ms. Steele. Yes, this is from CARAS. There's two parts, or two or three parts to 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 for the program. So this is towards their existing ESOL provision, as well as a new activity. 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, the council obviously recognizes the importance of funding this work for sanctuary seekers. There is a sanctuary, borough of sanctuary fund that will be coming online later in the year, so it's recommended that this project be funded in full at this stage and can then apply to the borough of sanctuary fund once that's launched later in the year for further continuation, if that fits the criteria of 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? Yes, just a clarification. What's the time frame 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 time frame. Yeah, if I could come back on that, but it's 36 sessions, so I'll come back on the exact time frame on that. Just for Councillor Warren, did you want to know? Yeah, agreed. Just come back to Councillor Warren. Sorry, just to clarify, so it's from the 1st of March 2025 till the end of February 2026. So it's for the full year. Okay, that's done. Good. Number eight's been agreed. Number nine is Carney's gym, transforming the youth space. Ms. Steele? Yeah, so Carney's are seeking £10,000 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? No? In agreement? Yeah. Sorry. I was just going to 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 for things like Wandsworth Arts Fringe to, sort of as part of the condition, to say we'd like it to be branded as part of that. Is there, sort of the question I'm posing to you is, would you consider, sort of things like this, would the art mural is then branded as part of the ELBOK programme 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 you, what do you mean by branded? 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 part of that wider year-long programme. 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, because... 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. Yeah, I didn't mean on the actual. It's when they talk about it that, you know, it's been as part of... Yes. So, it's basically how they communicate that, you know, this mural is being designed over 2025 to 2026, and is therefore part of the wider borough. So, it's nothing written on the mural, but it's kind of associated with... No, no, no, no, no, or any of the others, yes, it's just associated as part of that comms. Okay. Yeah, that's fine. 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. Now, 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 are, 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 projects and had limited scope, saying it was only reaching 10 to 12 people. It appeared to be part of the organisation's existing work, which would be a low priority for the fund. And additionally, the people in the hospital will obviously be inpatients of Springfield, but there might not be Bournsworth 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 there, looking for salary costs towards a full-time hub, food hub manager, and that would ensure five-day-a-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 that reach 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. Mr. Worrell. 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 is 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'd need to double-check. I think it is an existing post that they can mobilize quickly, but I need to double-check the application. Yeah, I'd need to double-check that and come back to you, councillor. I'm going to support. Yeah, thank you very much. We support the officer's recommendation to agree that grant. So number 12, we're into Dance West. 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 for 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 would involve sort of 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 favour of supporting this to the full amount. Yeah, 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? Yeah, so, and is that on us to, is that on officers to go and say, where's your endorsement? Like, it just needs to be a proper endorsement. Yeah, we do follow up with all, all councillors around the endorsement. Double-check. This, because of the nature of the application, it does only need one councillor. 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 want to say something about the learning for the year that gets captured in the guidance, both to councillors and the ones with grants fund 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 officers. We just didn't put it in, but we did receive endorsements. Okay. Have we agreed with this one? Yeah. So number 12 is agreed. Number 13? Sorry. Not a query, just, again, similar to the other. Sorry, don't. Yeah, sorry, just similar to Carney's, you know, 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. Yeah. That it's branded as part of Elbog. Yeah. Happy to do that in a similar way to the last one, yeah. Number 13, Dendee Collective, Wandsworth Masquerade 2025. You're recommending, officers, so, Ms. Thiel? Yeah, so this is Dendee Collective. It's an arts project, but they have come in under the health and well-being 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 well-being theme, which is why it wasn't passed to the LBOC champions group. And they've clearly evidenced the need for the project. The engagement with local organisations is slightly unclear, so we've asked that both us and the Grants of the Arts team help link them in with organisations locally who can provide those kind of networks for them, and it's conditional on development permissions being in place for the walkabout and any other sort of licensing or details that they need. But we are 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. Yeah. 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 it clearly makes sense to put the borough of culture on there as well. Just wondered what, here it says, the applicant states that it will collaborate with local organisations, Tooting Works, Mukshkil, Asan, Hestia's Age Activity, KLS, Age UK, and I note that we have given Age UK, KLS, I think Mukshkil. 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 said they'll connect with? I think it's just local groups that they've said they connect with. They have worked in the borough before, and these might well be connections they already have. Mr. Worrell. Just once again, a technical question. Why is this coming in under this funding stream and not WAF? 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 theme, 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. In the body of the text, you said this also could have been under citizen and civic engagement. Sir Donald? I'm 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. Commissioner, 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. So 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 50 neurodiverse Wandsworth residents a week, and the activities would be a range of things, including cinema trips, theatre, concerts, nights out, et cetera, mini-breaks, golf. With this application, officers, again, it 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 for 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 that 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 banner. No, not really. It 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, one councillor recommendation. Thank you. You want to? Yeah, no, agreed. It only has one. Committee, are you in agreement with the officer's recommendation to 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 Juicy Couture UK. It's not recommended by officers. Ms. Steele. Yeah, thank you. So the House of Juicy Couture 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. And the project ran a version of this last year as a kind of commercial entity and no information had been provided about any kind of ticketing structure or how the project would operate. It was unclear how linked in 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 are not recommending this for health and well-being. Ms. Steele, did you want to say anything about it? Because there's an art, no? Arts aspect. No, I understand why the recommendation was put forward. Yeah, Councillor Worrell. Yes, I suppose for those of you that don't know, the ballroom culture and the LGBTQ community is very, very significant in terms of a safe space for different members of that community and a lot of work is done around it in terms of health education work and esteem building work. I understand and I 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 Council like Canola has supported it, I think there is more direct link there. I think also within that, just to recognise, as I said, in the exploration of this, is that you can actually build a number of different forms of interventions around esteem 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 have, I mean, 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 issues with the application could have been resolved. But, yes, it's an organisation we're very keen to work with over London Borough of Culture. It was just that within the application, you know, it's for all the reasons still is headlined. Good. I think we're agreeing to turn this down, but suggest to talk to London Borough of Culture. So that's number 15. Number 16 is recommended Catherine Lowe's settlement, Family Futures Refugee Programme, Parenting Workshops. And officers are recommending. Ms. Steele? Yes, this is Catherine Lowe seeking funding for the Family Futures Refugee Programme. 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. Twenty-four 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 meant the council's commitment as a borough of sanctuary. And, again, the organisation could apply to the Borough of Sanctuary Fund when that comes online later 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 that 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. Agreement. Thank you very much. We've agreed number 16. Number 17, officers are not recommending Living Truth, CRC, Healthy Minds and Healthy Community Projects. Ms. Steele. So Living Truth, we're requesting £8,680 for their whole family health and well-being sustainable living project. So this would see six families benefit in an eight-week programme. They included mental health sessions, sessions on growing fruit and veg, public speaking, and then a four-day farming and sustainable living residential on each shallow 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. The applicant had made a limited case for the need of this project, particularly the residential farm visit. And being just six families, it was felt that it 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 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. So it was unclear if the supervision sessions and training was something that the youth workers staff had requested or whether it was something that had come from the organisational 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 organisational 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 group so that they can access that if they're not aware of that already. But 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 attested by the very eloquent support by Councillor Yates for this. And speaking as a recently qualified councillor 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 Worrell. 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 programme that the organisation 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 been done. However, I feel that, as I said, for a number of organisations, 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? 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 pan-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're hoping that between 15 and 20 disabled people will be trained up in co-production and campaign skills. And of them, one or two people would be identified as future leaders and will 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. 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 think 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 Ms Steele, make sure that that introduction happens, yeah. Any further comments? We're in agreement? Yeah, I'm with the officers. We agree. Number 19. Number 20. Samuels Charity at Home. Officers are not recommending Ms Steele. Thank you. So Samuels Charity requesting £10,000. 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 Onesworth 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 centred on the benefits around releasing funds for the NHS but 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 Onesworth 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 were 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 Year 5 pupils as peer mediators who would resolve low-level disputes during break times. Their 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 programme. 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. Limited information was provided on the need for the project, including information around the staffing as well. It was unclear how engaged the schools were within the project and whether they could mobilise within the time frame the 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. Ursula Rigby. Yes, so I appreciate those comments. Did officers go back to them to clarify on those two points about the raised? Which two points? Yes. Yes. About these two points, about it not being clear how engaged the schools were and how quickly they could mobilise. Thank you. 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 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 Rigby, carry on. 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 jeopardise learning and also take poor behaviours 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 organisation 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've been speaking as a former primary school teacher myself. I can absolutely endorse all those comments. I think it has tremendous potential as a programme. 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 organisation has got a school that is sort of biting their hand off wanting to do it because we will need significant support from the school to make it work. Yeah, Councillor Worrell. Yeah, just taking on board what my fellow councillors 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 Rigby said, this is really important work. In terms of the time frame, 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 the issues that my fellow councillors 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 weight behind it to help it succeed. I see there's quite a lot of support for this project 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's truly supported and then come back in for 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, WeJam Foundation, Wandsworth Rocks. Offices are recommending the steel. Yep. So WeJam Foundation are looking for £9,460 for the WeRocks project. They are seeking to deliver a 10-week programme 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 sort of simplified version. So children will play one note, but it will sort of 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 Wandsworth 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 £9,460 requested. Councillor Worrell. It's 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 £12,889 and annual expenditure, 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 Worrell. Yeah, that'd 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's actually being spent or if it's being held in reserves and yet we're giving them a grant for activity. So, yeah, this is our... I'll wait for clarification for you and I'll go with the officer's recommendations. Go with the recommendation. Yeah. 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... Branded as part of Borough Couch. Yeah, all right. Yeah, yeah. 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 under AOB, could we just reflect on looking at 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 Councillor Rigby suggested we need to look at what we're expecting of the Councillor recommendations that we don't just have things like it's a good project and, you know, yeah. Okay. Councillor Hedges, 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. Yeah. 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 ones and then can I say that by the end of March write to Masteel with any comments and would you put together any comments that would 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.