Agenda and minutes

To note the attendance at this meeting of any duly appointed Reserve Members.

Reserve Members may attend meetings:-

(i)                 to take the place of an ordinary Member for whom they are a reserve;

(ii)               where the ordinary Member will be absent for the whole of the meeting; and

(iii)             the meeting notes at the start of the meeting at the item ‘Reserves’ that the Reserve Member is or will be attending as a reserve;

(iv)              if a Reserve Member whose intention to attend has been noted arrives after the commencement of the meeting, then that Reserve Member can only act as a Member from the start of the next item of business on the agenda after his/her arrival.

RESOLVED:  To note that there were no Reserve Members in attendance at this meeting.

To note the appointment of Councillor Lynda Seymour as a Reserve Member in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 1.5 and following notification from the Conservative Group Leader.

RESOLVED:  That the Panel note the appointment of Councillor Lynda Seymour as a Reserve Member of the Grants Advisory Panel for the Municipal Year 2010/11.

To receive declarations of personal or prejudicial interests, arising from business to be transacted at this meeting, from:

(a)               all Members of the Committee, Sub Committee, Panel or Forum;

(b)               all other Members present in any part of the room or chamber.

RESOLVED:  To note that the following interests were declared:

Agenda Item 10 – Grants Appeals 2010/11

Councillor Nana Asante declared a personal interest in the following organisations: 

She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Sue Anderson declared a personal interest in that she worked for Harrow Primary Care Trust (PCT) and occasionally visited the Harrow Healthy Living Centre.  She declared a further personal interest in Harrow Mencap as her husband was a governor of Kingsley School.  She would remain in the room whilst the matters were considered and voted upon.

Councillor Nizam Ismail declared a personal interest in that he was Chairman of the Harrow Muslim Council.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Krishna James declared a personal interest in that she was Ward Councillor for Harrow Healthy Living Centre and had previously used the facilities.  She would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Manji Kara declared a personal interest in that he was a Council representative for Age Concern.  He would remain in the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Councillor Chris Mote declared a personal interest in that he had known the Senitt family for a number of years.  He left the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

Deven Pillay declared a prejudicial interest in the following organisations:

He left the room whilst the matter was considered and voted upon.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 March 2010 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 March 2010, be taken and read and signed as a correct record subject to the following amendment:

Minute 214 – Grant Funding 2010/11

That the 5^th line in the second paragraph be amended to read:

“… Upon agreement that the revised proposals be considered, the Labour Group brought forward an amendment.  Following a vote this second amendment was lost.”

To appoint a Vice-Chairman of the Grants Advisory Panel for the Municipal Year 2010/11.

RESOLVED:  To appoint Councillor Mrs Vina Mithani as Vice-Chairman of the Grants Advisory Panel for the Municipal Year 2010/2011.

To receive questions (if any) from local residents or organisations under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 51 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that the following public questions were received:

1.        

2.        

To receive petitions (if any) submitted by members of the public/Councillors under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 49 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

RESOLVED:  To note that no petitions were received at this meeting under the provisions of the Executive Procedure Rule 49 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

To receive deputations (if any) under the provisions of Executive Procedure Rule 50 (Part 4D of the Constitution).

[Note:  The Panel’s policy (Minute 60:  28.07.03) in principle is not to receive deputations relating to individual grant applications].

[Note:  The Panel's policy (Minute 13: 06.07.06) is to receive deputations annually at its November meeting].

RESOLVED:  That in accordance with Executive Procedure Rule 50 (Part 4D of the Constitution) that Executive Procedure Rules 50.1 and 50.4 be suspended in order to receive a deputation from the Alan Senitt Memorial Trust in relation to Agenda Item 10 Grant Appeals 2010/11

A representative from the Alan Senitt Memorial Trust contended that:

·                    the programme was unique and innovative and provided young people with Leadership Skills and valuable work experience so that they became effective citizens;

·                    the project encouraged young people of different faiths to work together so that they could learn from each other and impact the community around then in a very effective way;

·                    the Grants Advisory Panel meeting on 3 March 2010 did not treat the organisation fairly and support the development of the service that the Trust provided.

In response to questions from Members of the Panel, the representative clarified that:

·                    the Trust provided a service to pupils attending Nower Hill High School, as it was the secondary school previously attended by Alan Senitt.  The programme was also offered in schools located in Watford, Bushey and Hayes;

·                    at the time of submitting the application for Grants funding, the organisation was not aware that it would not received funding on the basis that the service was also offered in schools outside the Harrow Borough.  As a result, the organisation had modified its application and was now requesting 25% of the original funding requested;

·                    the programme was aimed at Year 10 pupils who were elected to attend the programme by the school and would complete alongside their GCSEs.  Personal safety and Community Leadership was also offered by the programme.  Pupils had participated in local community projects that supported vulnerable people, such as, participating in activities at the Milmans Day Centre.

In thanking the representative for the deputation, the Corporate Director of Community and Environment advised that the Panel would consider the information contained in the appeal papers submitted by the Trust.  He added that the information received by the application closing date of 30 October 2009 was considered by officers during the allocation process.  Any information received after this date was additional.  As a result, officers and the Panel were unable to consider subsequent information received after that date or during this meeting.

In concurring with the advice provided by the Corporate Director, the Chairman urged the Panel to distinguish between original information in the application received by the deadline, new information provided today and any information already in the application submitted which was highlighted in the Deputation when making their decision. Whilst the Panel cannot rely on new information, it can take into account information which was in the application but was omitted from the report if the omission had a material effect on the decision made on 3 March 2010.

To consider the appointment of an Adviser to the Grants Advisory Panel for the Municipal Year 2010/11.

The Panel received a report of the Director of Legal and Governance Services in which they were requested to consider appointing an adviser to the Panel for 2010/11 Municipal Year to assist the work of the Panel on general and specific matters.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to the Portfolio Holder for Community and Cultural Services)

That Deven Pillay be appointed as the Adviser to the Grants Advisory Panel for the 2010/11 Municipal Year.

Report of the Corporate Director Community and Environment.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director of Community and Environment that presented the appeals received against the recommendations made by the Grants Advisory Panel on 3 March 2010 and the decision made by Cabinet on 18 March 2010.

An officer outlined the recommendations of the report and advised that organisations had a right to appeal if they felt that the information presented to the Panel on 3 March 2010 was incorrect or if information was omitted and that this had a material effect on the Panel’s decision.

Grounds for Appeal

He added that in assessing whether an organisation had grounds for appeal:

·                    any additional information provided by the applicant after the application closing date (30 October 2009) or submitted as part of an appeal; or  

·                    if an organisation felt that the grant recommended was less than what they had applied for

could not be considered as a basis for an appeal.

The assessment process

The officer outlined the three-stage assessment process that applied to all grant applications received by the closing date:

Stage 1

Applicants were required to fulfil the grants criteria to be eligible for funding and qualify for the second stage.  The Home Group were eliminated at this stage as they were not a registered charity and had an annual turnover in excess of £230 million.

Stage 2

Applications that had been assessed and scored using the assessment tool were positioned below or above the threshold applicable to the amount of funding they were requesting.  Applications, such as, the Association of Senior Muslim Citizens, that did not score above the threshold were eliminated at this stage.

Stage 3

a)                 All remaining applications were required to demonstrate whether their services were delivered outside of the borough and if Harrow residents would benefit from them.  Any applications that could not demonstrate this were eliminated;

b)                 applications that did not provide a breakdown of how the budget for a particular activity would be funded by the funding applied for were also eliminated;

c)                  other applications that had received funding in 2008/09 and had not provided monitoring information or evidence by the application deadline were also eliminated from the process.

A number of applications, including the Alan Senitt Trust and Girlguiding Middlesex North West had been eliminated at this stage.

d)                 other organisations, such as, Aspire, Harrow Healthy Living Centre, Harrow Mencap/Middlesex Association for the Blind and Age Concern partnership Consortium were eliminated at this final stage as the proposed projects in their application duplicated another service being delivered or being considered for funding by the Council for 2010/11.

Lessons to be learnt

The Panel were advised of the issues that had been highlighted by the recent grants round which included, the eligibility criteria that organisations must fulfil and the duplication of services that different organisations would provide.  An officer added that organisation would be advised that the duplication of services would be considered as part of the assessment criteria.

Funding Position

The remaining balance from the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10.

In view of the late hour, the Panel was unable to receive a report of the Corporate Director of Community and Environment that proposed that consideration be given to revising the Council’s voluntary sector funding arrangements and that members of the sector be consulted on this.

Members agreed unanimously that discussion should be deferred until the next Panel meeting in September.

The Corporate Director of Community and Environment advised that under the COMPACT agreement, officers would need twelve weeks to consult with the voluntary sector about the proposed revisions.  If the Panel were to discuss the report in September, a delay to the 2011/12 grants round would occur and officers would not be able to implement any decisions taken until December 2010.

In response to a question by the Chairman, the Adviser clarified that Cabinet could not make a decision until the consultation process had been completed. 

The Corporate Director confirmed that if the Panel agreed with the officers’ recommendations in the report, the Portfolio Holder could take the decision for the voluntary sector to be consulted.  This would enable officers to continue with the timetable for assessing grant applications before the end of this financial year.  If the decision to go out to consultation was made at the Cabinet meeting in September, this would lead to considerable delay and decisions for funding may be taken in the 2011/12 financial year.  This could have budgetary implications. Members however pointed out that it was more important to get the process right than to rush it.

In light of the advice received, the Chairman sought clarification on whether the Adviser could engage with the voluntary sector and ask whether they would be willing to agree to a reduced consultation period.  In response, he advised that he could not speak for the sector before consulting with them but engaging with the voluntary sector to discuss any revisions to the funding arrangements was vital.  He added that the process would need to be well organised and a contingency plan would need to be agreed.

The Corporate Director of Community and Environment advised that in order to continue with the timetable, a special meeting of the Panel could be arranged to discuss the report.  This would enable officers to start the consultation process and complete the assessment process in time for the Panel meeting in March 2011.  In response, some Members stated that the issue should be fully debated in order for a clear, correct and proper process to be implemented.

RESOLVED:  That discussion on the report be deferred until the meeting of the Panel on 7 September 2010.

Resolved to RECOMMEND:  (to the Portfolio holder of Community and Cultural Services)  That

(1)               the Portfolio Holder delegate authority to officers to write to all voluntary organisations advising them that the grants time-table would change this year because of the necessary consultation

(2)               officers would circulate this information to a wider area and advise the voluntary sector accordingly.

In accordance with Executive Procedure Rule 48.2 (Part 4D of the Constitution) it was

RESOLVED:  At 9.55 pm to continue until 10.10 pm.

Which cannot otherwise be dealt with.

Chairman’s Announcements

The Chairman advised Members that she had received letters from the Willow Tree Centre and Harrow Muslim Council (HMC)l.  The letter from Harrow Muslim Council referred to the issue of public liability insurance and the current restriction of hours and premises used by the HMC.

The Panel were advised that the letters would be forwarded to the Corporate Director of Community and Environment and the information and a response would be brought to the attention of the Panel at the next meeting.

RESOLVED:  That the announcements be noted.