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 the attendance at this meeting of the following duly appointed Reserve Members:-

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

(a)               all Members of the Panel;

(b)               all other Members present.

RESOLVED:  That

(a)               the following personal interests were declared and that all Members remained in the room during the discussion and decision-making:

Item 7:  Grant Funding 2012/13

Councillor Nana Asante – Flash Musicals, Harrow MENCAP, Harrow in Europe, Harrow Agenda 21 and Voluntary and Community Sector Forum

Councillor Susan Anderson – Harrow Association of Disabled People, Harrow MENCAP, ADHD and Autism Support, Harrow Agenda 21

Councillor Krishna James – MIND in Harrow, Harrow Carers, Harrow Association of Disabled People, Rethink, Harrow Law Centre, Harrow Healthy Living Centre

Councillor Manji Kara – AGE UK, Bentley Priory Nature Reserve, Harrow in Europe, Harrow Indian Association

Councillor Mrs Vina Mithani – Navnat Vadil Mandal

Councillor Joyce Nickolay – Harrow in Europe, Bentley Priory Nature Reserve

DevenPillay, Adviser – Age UK, Bentley Priory Nature Reserve, Harrow in Europe, Harrow Indian Association

Councillor Sasi Suresh – Harrow Bengalee Association, Harrow Tamil Association, Harrow Tamil School Association, London Kalibari

(b)               The following prejudicial interests were declared and Councillors would leave the room should the relevant individual organisation be discussed:

Item 7:  Grant Funding 2012/13

Councillor Nana Asante – Age UK

Councillor Susan Anderson – Harrow Agenda 21

DevenPillay, Adviser – Harrow MENCAP

Councillor Joyce Nickolay – Harrow Association of Voluntary Services

That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2012 be taken as read and signed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 January 2012 be taken as read and signed as a correct record, subject to an amendment on page 3 to read: ‘allowing each individual on the course organised by Community Link-up to be responsible for their memory sticks was acceptable as the individual unit cost was low and the expected benefit to the group’s members was high.’

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

RESOLVED:  That

(1)               the Panel’s policy (Minute 60: 28/07/03) be revoked, and that in the future, Deputations be received in accordance with procedure rule 50 as set out in the Constitution;

(2)               to note that no public questions were put, or petitions or deputations received.

Report of the Corporate Director Community Health and Well-Being.

The Chairman welcomed the Corporate Director Community, Health and Well-Being to the meeting.

The Panel received a report of the Corporate Director Community Health and Well-Being which set out grant funding recommendations for 2012/13.  The report requested that Members award funding from the Main Grants Programme to Voluntary and Community Sector organisations to support the delivery of services and projects.

In presenting the report, the Divisional Director Community and Culture made the following points:

·                     a total of 78 applications had been received by the deadline and the total funds requested amounted to over £1.5 million.  However, the amount of funding available for distribution from the Main Grants programme in 2012/13 was £669,360;

·                     the report recommended that £74,000 be ringfenced to support the delivery of a new infrastructure support service for Third Sector organisations.  This would leave £595,360 available for grant allocation;

·                     the total amount applied for by small grant applicants was £130,651. In keeping with a recommendation from the Portfolio Holder for Community and Culture, 15% of the budget (£89,304) would be allocated to small grants to ensure a wide distribution of funds.  If the Panel decided to award 90% of the grant fund requested to those groups with an assessment score above 50%, then the maximum number of applications that could be funded was 21 and would total £86,414;

·                     if the above suggestion regarding small grants was implemented, the sum available for large grants would amount to £506,056.  If the Panel decided to award 71% of the grant fund requested to those groups with an assessment score above 86%, the maximum number of applications that could be funded was 18, and would total £500,275.

The Divisional Director emphasised that awarding a significantly lower level of grant than requested might mean that some projects could not be delivered or might be delivered at significantly different levels.  Furthermore, any recommendation to Cabinet relating to the allocation of grant funding would be subject to the appeals process.  Therefore the final amounts awarded could be subject to change.

Following a brief discussion, Panel Members agreed that the suggested deadline of 2 April 2012 be deleted and that where grant awards were made, these should be subject to receipt of satisfactory references and supporting documents from applicants two weeks after notification of the grant funding decision.

Members made the following points concerning the proposal that an independent adviser be included as part of the appeals process:

·                     in the interests of transparency and fairness, the Panel recommended an appeals panel of members rather  than an independent adviser with the Divisional Director and the Portfolio Holder;

·                     the need for a rigorous, open and transparent process at the appeals stage would be better served if the decision-making involved Members;

·                     the importance of being sensitive to the public perception of what constituted fairness and transparency in the appeals process was key;

·                     that three Members of the Panel who had not been members of the 1 March 2012  Panel, two Labour and one Conservative, be invited to take  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.