The Scrutiny Review Panel met to discuss the successes and engagement strategies of previous CAN Seed and CAN Catalyst Funds, with a view to improving future iterations of these environmental grants. The panel reviewed the uptake of funds, the methods used for promotion, and explored ways to reach a wider range of community groups.

Successes and Engagement of Previous CAN Funds

The panel reviewed the performance and engagement strategies of the CAN Seed and CAN Catalyst Funds. Eleanor Healicon, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Manager in the Climate and Nature team, presented data indicating that the first round of the CanFund (2021-2022) saw a significant uptake from schools, with a third of all applications originating from educational institutions. This success was attributed to the overlapping promotion with the Youth Climate Assembly programme.

The CanFund was also highlighted as a successful tool for educating residents about the council's climate and nature strategy. An example was given of a residents' association that, after applying for funds to plant trees, decided to purchase battery-powered gardening tools instead of petrol-powered ones following a conversation with the Can team.

The importance of local knowledge held by councillors in engaging community groups was also acknowledged. Councillors were instrumental in spreading awareness and targeting promotion to groups within their wards that were known to be seeking funding or already had relevant projects.

Regarding fund utilisation, the first CanFund, which ran from 2021 to 2022 as a ward-based fund with £189,000 available, saw approximately 70% of the funds spent. The CanCatalyst fund, offering larger grants of up to £5,000, had £40,000 available over two rounds and achieved an 88% spend. The CanSeed fund, providing smaller ward-based grants of up to £1,000, also saw a significant portion of its funds utilized.

Nick Lacey, Head of Climate and Nature, outlined various promotional avenues used for previous funds, including reports and presentations at area committees, promotion at CAN summits, inclusion in member e-briefs and internal newsletters, and utilisation of social media across multiple platforms. Physical posters were displayed in Stockport hub locations and libraries, and advertisements featured on digital notice boards. Press releases were issued, and paid social media adverts were used. Promotion also extended through the VCFSE Forum, Youth Council, Active Communities Board, Social Value Steering Group, Stockport Family Partnership Board, and Head Teacher Consortiums.

Discussion also touched upon potential improvements for future engagement, including council-led or community-inspired ideas, community voting on projects, and identifying potential land for utilisation. The panel explored how to reach groups that are not typically involved in climate and nature action, with suggestions including targeting allotment groups, green groups, and utilising family hubs.

Discussion on Engagement Strategies

The panel engaged in a detailed discussion about how to enhance engagement with future iterations of the CAN Fund, particularly focusing on reaching groups that are not already actively involved in climate and nature initiatives.

Councillor Rachel Wise raised questions about the reasons for any underspend in previous funds, such as a lack of suitable applications or issues with application quality. Eleanor Healicon explained that while most applications received were eligible, there were instances where wards reached their funding limits while others had underspends. For the CanCatalyst fund, some applications in the first round did not meet all criteria, but the second round saw a high volume of applications.

A key theme of the discussion was identifying and engaging with groups that might not traditionally apply for such funding. Councillor Wise highlighted the potential for organizations with access to bid writers to submit more successful bids, referencing the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF). Eleanor Healicon suggested that smaller, ward-based funds were more likely to attract smaller groups motivated by nature or climate, while larger grants under the CanCatalyst fund tended to attract more established organizations. She also noted a general trend towards more nature-based applications than those directly focused on emission reduction or adaptation.

The accessibility of the application process was praised, with most applicants understanding the requirements. However, the panel explored how to support groups with less agency or those new to the application process. Ideas included having stalls at events like the CAN Summit or in accessible locations like Stockport Hubs and libraries to offer direct assistance.

The potential for synergy between climate action and health initiatives was discussed, with the Live Well strategy being identified as a potential avenue to reach new groups. Councillor Liz Crix inquired about feedback from the CAN Summit regarding engaging less-traditional groups. It was noted that while resident associations and groups supporting asylum seekers had applied, there was potential to proactively reach out to similar organisations. The idea of identifying suitable council-owned land for community projects was revisited, with the potential for signage to draw attention to these spaces.

The discussion also explored how to encourage more technical applications related to emission reduction and adaptation. It was suggested that the council could leverage its technical expertise to support applicants, providing guidance on complex issues such as unculverting watercourses or managing flood resilience. The importance of systemic solutions, rather than just addressing visible issues like litter, was also emphasized.

Councillor Will Dawson inquired about any work done to support groups who took the initial step to apply but were unsuccessful. Eleanor Healicon confirmed that feedback was provided on all applications, and if an application was ineligible but could be made so with tweaks, this feedback was given. She acknowledged the difficulty in gauging those who considered applying but did not take the first step.

The potential for leveraging existing community structures was a recurring point. This included housing associations, tenants' associations, sports clubs, and organizations involved in the circular economy or land stewardship. The concept of forest bathing and the therapeutic benefits of nature were mentioned in relation to the Live Well strategy. It was suggested that supporting existing groups that already build community agency and pointing them towards climate-focused initiatives could be more effective than trying to build from the ground up within the CAN Fund.

The panel also discussed the importance of showcasing successful past projects through case studies to inspire new applicants and provide tangible examples of what can be achieved. The idea of promoting projects that have a positive impact on areas like reducing traffic congestion, as seen with a school street initiative, was also raised, highlighting that not all climate-friendly actions are immediately recognised as such.

The meeting concluded with the agreement that officers would compile a list of recommendations based on the discussions for future iterations of the CAN Fund. The next meeting was scheduled for 13 January 2026.