The Grants Overview and Scrutiny Sub-Committee of Wandsworth Council met on Tuesday 27 January 2026 to consider Round 31 of the Wandsworth Grant Fund. The committee reviewed 39 eligible applications, recommending awards totalling £141,108 to 17 organisations.

Wandsworth Grant Fund, Round 31

The committee considered applications for Round 31 of the Wandsworth Grant Fund, a scheme established to support not-for-profit activities benefiting Wandsworth residents. Harriet Steele, Voluntary Sector Partnership Manager, presented the report, outlining that 51 applications were received, with 39 deemed eligible and requesting a total of £315,556.52. The committee was recommended to approve awards to 17 organisations totalling £141,108. This funding is drawn from the baseline allocation for 2025/26, supplemented by funds from the Wandsworth Community Fund and an uplift from the Cost of Living Fund.

Councillor Daniel Hamilton declared an interest in the Chestnut Grove Academy Podcast Project due to his son attending the school and recused himself from the discussion. Councillor Jo Rigby also declared an interest in KLS due to her involvement with the organisation and left the room during its discussion.

The committee proceeded to discuss each application, with many being agreed without significant debate. However, several applications prompted discussion and clarification:

• Battersea Befriending Network: Councillor Stephen Worrall expressed a desire to explore further funding avenues for the organisation, which was agreed by officers.
• Community Drug and Alcohol Recovery Services (CDARS): Councillor Worrall queried whether participants would be new to the scheme or involved in previous pilots, with Kieran Walsdor, Senior Voluntary Sector Grants and Projects Officer, confirming a mix of both.
• Connected Lives: Councillor Worrall expressed disappointment that Tooting was not included as a delivery area, suggesting a review of delivery locations. Officers agreed to relay this feedback to Connected Lives.
• Enable LC: Councillor Jack Mayorcas raised a query regarding the income and expenditure figures for Enable LC, noting a discrepancy. Officers confirmed that the deficit was covered by unrestricted reserves and that further review of their accounts would be undertaken.
• Putney Arts Theatre - Group 64 Theatre for Young People: Councillor Jo Rigby questioned the timeline for the project, suggesting a slight shift to allow more time for implementation. Officers agreed to discuss this with the organisation. Councillor Rigby also raised concerns about the application's alignment with the Children and Young People theme, suggesting it might be a better fit for the Arts and Culture theme, which is not currently funded. Officers explained the assessment process, noting concerns around evidence of need and alignment with fund priorities. Councillor Rigby requested the application be reviewed, feeling that Putney Arts Theatre was doing amazing things for severely disabled children. The committee agreed to revisit the assessment.
• Kambala Estate Resident Association: Councillor Kate Stock endorsed the application, highlighting its alignment with the Raising Aspirations and Potential theme and its contribution to the London Borough of Culture.
• Katherine Low Settlement (KLS): Councillor Daniel Hamilton commended KLS on their successful grant applications and suggested they hold workshops to share their expertise with other charities. Councillor Jo Rigby raised concerns about the Putney Arts Theatre application, questioning why it was not funded while KLS, which also supports young people, was. Harriet Steele explained that Putney Arts Theatre was assessed as a better fit for the Arts and Culture theme, and that there were concerns around evidence of need and alignment with fund priorities.
• Refuge: Councillor Jack Mayorcas questioned why Refuge, despite a strong application, was not recommended for funding, citing their high level of reserves and the project being an existing one. Officers explained that the high reserves and the project being an existing service led to a lower priority for the fund. Councillor Mayorcas suggested that such information should be more explicit in the papers.
• Sport4Health: Councillor Lawlor raised concerns about discrepancies between income and expenditure and the reliance on match funding. Officers confirmed they would take away the point about match funding to confirm.
• St Mark's Church: Councillor Lawlor requested clarification regarding match funding for St Mark's Church, which was confirmed to be for the lift replacement.
• Tooting History Group: Councillor Jo Rigby questioned why the grant requested by the Tooting History Group was reduced from the amount recommended, with officers explaining that the reduction was due to website development costs, which were considered a lower priority.
• Wandsworth Mediation Service: Councillor Chuck raised a question about how national charities with large reserves are assessed, and whether local arms of these charities are treated differently. Officers explained that the focus is on impact and investing in smaller organisations that need support.

Ultimately, the committee recommended awards totalling £141,108 to 17 organisations. Several applications were not recommended for funding due to various reasons, including a lack of clear alignment with fund priorities, insufficient evidence of need, existing activities being a low priority, or the organisation's financial position. The committee also noted the significant amount of funding available through the Wandsworth Grant Fund, including contributions from the Wandsworth Community Fund and an uplift from the Cost of Living Fund.