Transcript

Hello, good evening, everyone, and welcome to this meeting. My name is Councillor Annan, and I'm the chair of the grants overviews and scrutiny subcommittee. 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, Ballam Ward. Thank you. Councillor Marshall. Present. Councillor Mike Mayacross. Present. Councillor Joe Rigby. It's run a lady. Yeah. Councillor Wuerl. Present. Apologies for absence have been received from Councillor Hamilton and Councillor Mrs. Graham. We have received, we have officers present who will introduce themselves as they addresses the committee. Declaration of Interests. Are there any declaration of either pecuniary or other registrable or non-registrable interests? If so, please declare any interest. Coating the item and paper number in which you have interest and describing the nature of your interest, including whether or not you will be taking part in the item. Minutes of 30, minutes, 30th of April 2025. Does the committee agree the minutes of, the minutes of the previous meeting held on 30th of April 2025 and can be signed as a correct records? Thank you. Can I ask Miss, can I ask Miss Steele to introduce the item? Thank you, Chair. I'm Harriet Steele, the volunteer sector grants and partnership manager for Wandsworth Council. So, this paper relates to round 30 of the Wandsworth Grant Fund, and that's the first round of this financial year. Currently, we have £319,500 available, and we received 16 eligible applications in this round. In total, those applications were asking for just over £118,000, and officers are recommending that awards are made to eight organisations 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. Thank you. Thank you. the need for the project hadn't been clearly described and the organisation 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 Agis. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Ms. Steele, for your helpful update. I was just wondering, and this question's actually from Councillor 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 organisations 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 organisation 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, no help was asked for from the Scouts, but we could go back after this committee and offer them some more support around this application. Regarding the level of reserves, I agree it's a smaller level of... There's other organisations 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 Abogne Residential Association. Can you please speak to the paper? Thank you. This is an application from the Abogne 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 Abogne Commuter Centre. 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? Did I miss? Any contribution? Any? So, is it agreed? Okay, all right. All right. Shall we go move on to the third paper? In Fitness for All CIC. Can you please introduce? Yeah, so this is an application from In Fitness for All CIC requesting £10,000. 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, etc. Officer 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 kind of 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. Any questions 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 Artbus 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 the group. 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. It's the Amatic 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. All right. Steve, please. Answer that. Just a question of clarification. In the grant, it says that they are looking to apply for continuation 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. Yeah, so Ms. Still, do you want to respond to that, please? Yes. So from the application, as far as I understand, 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 why don't we move on to the next paper? That's paper number 5, CDARS. Can you please speak to the paper? Thank you. This is an application from the Community Drug and Alcohol Recovery Service, or CEDARS. 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 starting up a project that was previously running in the borough. 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 well-being 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 that 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. All right. Yeah. You 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, you know, 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. 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. Sue? Sorry. 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 would be useful if the application also explained a bit more about the relationship with SLAM and WEOU 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 bid? 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's a bit 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 forwards. I also thought it's a good application which needs to be considered. So if they can be, if you can write back to them and say, all right, 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 to you because so. Yeah, thank you. We go on to the next one. It's contracts. That is paper number six. Thank you. So, yeah, so contact are looking for £4,982 for family fund 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 Warnsworth 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 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 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 they're a national charity 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. So we are agreeing on it? Agreed. Thank you. So we'll move on to the next paper. Paper number seven, friends of TSM. Please speak to the paper. So the friends of Trinity St. Mary C.V. Primary School are seeking funds of £7,375 to launch an outdoor learning centre 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 playgrounds, sort of 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 organisations would be able to use the space. And the project plan didn't include a clear timeline on how they would sort of collect data or identify, you know, who was going to monitor the project and how they would understand whether it had been successful. So it's felt not to award funding on this occasion. Any questions? Okay, Steve. Just an observation. 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 and 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 they actually 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. Yeah. Hello. You want to ask what that? Yeah, 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 Ibistock Place School. Can you please speak to the paper? Yes. This is an application from Ibistock Place School seeking £2,230. This is to continue a project that was previously run by Spencer Lynx, and they provide hockey training for about 30 children in years five and six who attend Alton Primary, Rearhampton Church School, and Heathmere Primary. And the funding is to support them with a hockey programme where they minibus in the children from the schools, provide hockey training, provide all the equipment and sort of a snack or 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. All right, any question? All right, see, please, go ahead. Yes, something we've just noticed in discussion on our side here is the, and it goes back to what you were saying, Councillor Hitches, 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 it's because they had sort of described how that funding is sort of will be invested in development plans for the school estate. But, no, that wasn't a typo. It is, I think it is, 58. This comes up once again, time and time again, that we have organisations with massive reserves making applications to us for, you know, £2,000 is nothing in comparison to the income and expenditure. And it feels, I know the recommendation surpasses, but it feels uncomfortable that we're giving huge organisations like this money when other organisations are really struggling and desperate for them. But maybe we need to go away and think about that issue and that criteria in terms of organisations applying for a token amount of money when they've got such huge amounts. Councillor Michael. 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, just as Steve says, it feels odd that we're helping a private organisation, a very financially successful organisation, 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. Ms. Still, if they haven't really described what the budget is, what the money is going to be really used for, why do we have to give it to them? Because there are other charities who have really declared it what they're going to use the money for, but we are not giving them. So we need to know more. So they've described the budget items. They've given a detailed list of the budget items, but they haven't specifically said what the £2,230 would go towards within the wider budget. So in the budget, they've got things like hockey sticks, money buses to and from the different schools. They've got DBS checked 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 makes part of that wider budget. Yeah. Colleague, do we want to approve this? 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. 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 personalised hockey sticks. I think it's a really tough one. If it is really for children from socio-economic backgrounds, then it's really difficult to refuse. But 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. Yeah, I haven't been on this committee for ages, so 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 next time. Yeah. All right, so is it agreed? Yeah. All right. Noted, mister? The next paper, paper number nine, is Rowe Hampton. Can you please speak to the paper? Yes, so this is an application from Rowe Hampton. They are requesting £8,610, and this is towards delivery of a programme of outreach events in Rowe Hampton, partnering with local community organisations 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 loaned out to other organisations 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 describe the need for the project within the application. Officers are recommending that an award of £8,610 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 of Wands were to ensure that the events that they are describing are widely publicised in the area. All right, any questions from the committee? All right, so do we agree on it? All right, thank you. So we move on to the next paper, the 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 organisations 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. All right, any questions from committee? All right, Councillor Ribi. 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? Like, 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 DVAS is and put it back again? So where we do have time, we do try and go back to organisations, 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. 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 more support from the team on how to provide the evidence? Okay. I think what I want... Because of our work with 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 to us. Is it possible for us to support charity organisations to do the proper bid writing? Because sometimes... Is it possible for them also to do like this video instead of putting it 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 it into writing, they didn't 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 form. We 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. Kiran, I want to speak. So yeah, Kiran, 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 and which organisations they go back 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 organisations 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 the decision of the officers on this paper? All right, Kieran, thank you. All right. The next paper is paper number 11, Regenerate. Please, can I speak to the paper? Yes, so this is an application from Regenerate. They're seeking £9,963. 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 our Roehampton and they will be targeted at young people and their families on the Alston Estate in Roehampton as well as the Lennox Estate and the Ashburton Estate in Putney. Officers 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 of Warnsworth to ensure the events are widely publicized. All right, Councillor, I agree. 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 a 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, we wouldn't encourage any type of zoo activity, would we? It's just such a weird thing. Yeah. Okay, Councillor Warrill. 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 zoo could actually be redirected to putting on the festival for an extra hour, because three to six is actually a really short time for 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 time frame seems really, really short. So maybe some reconsideration around that. Councillor Aegis. Thanks, Chair. I agree with Councillor Rigby and Councillor Worrell on this one. It was just a quick question about 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. Dillard, you want to speak to? You want to respond? No, I take award 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 questions? So do we agree? All right. Let's agree. Move on to the next paper. Paper number 12. That is Rosalind Park, FC. Can you please speak to the paper, Ms. Dill? Yes, Rob Slim 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 7 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 clearly described how they met the thematic priorities. The delivery plan 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 is being delivered in schools where the applicant's 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 the unrestricted reserves. There's a negative here, and we've had organisations with negative reserves before, and we've given them grants. I take that 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 auditor's 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-end, June 2023, but they are in the process of finalising 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 final financial position of the organisation. So do we agree on this? All right, so agreed. All right, we move on to the next paper. That is paper number 13, and 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 aimed to reduce social isolation, provide a benefit to people's physical and mental health, increase their social networks, etc. 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, and it was unclear whether they had awareness of and had linked in to understand the wider offer of walks that 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. So unbalance officers felt that at this time the application should not be supported. Yes, 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. Yeah, 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, but it was sufficiently different from what we'd funded them previously, that it wasn't seen as duplicating what we'd previously funded. So officers were minded to support a recommendation of £7,590. Okay. Councillor Wigby, please. Yeah, so I remember around six years ago when Tara 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. 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 theatre up to the community because it was not being used by the community. So I wondered if, since they got all that funding, have they ramped up their work with the community? Because we're just continuing to fund it through this. I mean, it's a great offer, it's a great theatre, but the whole thing was the £50,000 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. Kieran wants to speak, so Kieran, please, go ahead. Thank you. I think, unfortunately, for the committee here, it's about the decision as to whether 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 whether you're going to agree or not agree this particular initiative for them. Yeah, I 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 sort of controversy of that money back 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 that? Okay, all right. That's good. All right. So we move on to the next paper, paper number 15, work and play scrap store. Can you please speak to the people? Yes. So this is the work and play scrap store seeking funding for Hazel Fest 2025, requesting £2,370. They're requesting funding towards the Hazel Fest, which is on the 22nd of June, 2 till 5 in the afternoon, on the Hazelhurst Estate. 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 and how 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 fund. 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, agreed. We still – all right, we'll move on to the last paper. That is Youth Battersea. Can you please speak to the paper? Yes, so this is an application from Youth Battersea for their Young Influencers Project. They're seeking £10,000, and this would enable them to recruit and engage a group of 20 young people aged 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. All right, Councilor Agus. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Steele, I think this is a really great application. I fully support it, and 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 Battersea, which is probably more of a collective rather than a ward. I wondered whether something like this, maybe we should just agree going forward, if we have like a constituency there, or like Putney 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 councillor endorsements. So actually, it is in the guidance documents there. So if we could just reinforce that moving forward, that'd be great. Yeah. Can I still note that? All right, so do we agree on this paper? Yeah. All right, that's good. Thank you so much. Okay, Councillor Warren, please speak. So I know we're coming 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 and we turn them down, the programme's not going to continue. But I think I would ask the grants team and Kieran to actually just go away and think a bit more clearly and re-look at the issue of organisations 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, councillors. And any other questions? All right, thank you. This concludes the meeting. Good day. Good day. Good day. Good day. Good day.