Agenda item

To consider the Chief Grants Officer’s reports on grant recommendations, as follows:

The Committee considered a report of the Chief Grants Officer which recommended grants to various organisations.

Members considered each application and the following observations were noted:

Item 7.a) (Community Transport Brent) - A Member raised concern over the reserves policy which was equivalent to seventeen days’ worth of current year expenditure, and an officer advised that the organisation was investing in fundraising capabilities and reserves were improving.

Item 7.b) (Newham Music Trust) - Members raised concern over the reserves policy and an officer replied that he had been in consultation with the Chamberlain’s Department and was of the opinion that the organisation was now making progress in terms of its general financial management and sustainability.

Overall the funding level had been the same throughout 2010, 2011 and 2012 but delivered through different sources. The government’s policy on creating music hubs was now being delivered through the Arts Council rather than through the London Borough of Newham, therefore Cabinet Office funding had increased substantially.

The Deputy Chairman remarked, and it was agreed, that in future if the grant request was within the remit of Local Authority statutory responsibility, it should be stated clearly in the assessment report. It was confirmed that this proposal did not fall within a statutory duty to provide.

Item 7.c) (Community Links Trust Ltd.) - Members and officers discussed that this was an excellent programme. There were concerns raised over the cost of generating funds (£1,039,274) to which officers replied that the figures had been assessed and were legitimate costs within the current SORP.  In future, it was agreed that more explicit detail would be given in the cover notes of grant recommendation reports when costs of generating funds appeared high.

Item 7.f) (Chickenshed Theatre) – A Member remarked that they had previously attended a Chickenshed performance and had seen first-hand the excellent opportunities for children from all backgrounds, races and abilities to study and learn together.

Item 7.h) (Revolving Doors Agency) – A Member queried the significant difference between the existing and anticipated income of the organisation and the fluctuations in reserves given that the board aspired to, but did not currently hold, six months of unrestricted operating costs.

An officer advised that the fluctuations in finances were due to the fact that the organisation’s budgeted income included only secured income. An updated forecast received just prior to the meeting substantially reduced the anticipated deficit thus leaving reserves closer to the aspired level.  

Item 7.l) (Kingston Voluntary Action) – The Chairman noted that this organisation had received several grants, but that this particular project provided support across several boroughs. 

The Chairman noted that a report was usually brought to the Committee at the end of the year which analysed grant spending by borough, in response to a query from the Deputy Chairman on how spending by borough related to the borough index of deprivation. The Deputy Chairman suggested that this report was very useful and might be brought to the Committee more frequently.

An officer advised that in this case, the application had been received from a consortium and that, in this instance, the grant may show a mismatch between need and application as it would benefit several London boroughs.