Agenda item

To consider and pass comments to Cabinet on the bids received for the UK Shared Prosperity Fund community hub and youth funding, as per Hart's approved investment plan.

Ms Tetlow introduced the report that detailed applications received for UKSPF funding for either community hubs or young people engagement projects. Many applications had been received, and it had been over-subscribed.  The report contained recommendations as to which applications should be successful. Non-successful applicants would receive assistance with accessing other funding streams.

Members queried;

·         Scoring criteria, specifically if detailed objective information was available to justify individual scores. One application was highlighted as showing anomalies. It was explained that applications were scored by a team, each score for each application was available. Officers explained that the organisations could request their own scoring sheet and that members could request any of them.

·         How was the reach information was used in the decision-making process. Concern was raised over the checking process of the reach claims

·         Whether applicants had any contact with the team after the initial selection phase.  It was stated that most applicants had been contacted for clarification.

·         Whether any scoring weight had been given to match-funding given that this was suggested in the UKSPF guidance. It was confirmed that no weight had been given to match-funding following consultation with stakeholders to maximise the level of applications received.

·         Which officers sat on the panel, Ms Tetlow explained that it comprised 4 officers and varied in grading and from different departments, The Young Peoples Panel also had a representative who sat on the Local Children’s Partnership

·         It was stated that no submission had been confirmed as successful prior to the closing date.

·         Concern was raised over the change of the fund allocation between the two projects. One unsuccessful application was highlighted as scoring the same as a successful bid.

·         Concern raised that the funds had been moved unilaterally across the two streams.

·         The lack of consideration for organisations with access to other funds or match-funding was highlighted in relation to one application.

·         The level and nature of stakeholder involvement.

Members were reminded that the scoring criteria in the two projects were different. It was confirmed that there had been no stakeholder involvement in the scoring or recommendation stages of the process.

Councillor Forster declared a non-pecuniary interest as the Hampshire County Council Cabinet Member with responsibility for schools.

Members raised questions in relation to:

·         the number of applications given to organisations based in Yateley

·         consideration of affordability to the individual organisations

·         exclusion of areas of high deprivation if in an area of wider affluence

·         subjectivity of the scoring, requesting clarity of what each score meant

·         catchment areas of the applications

·         the capping of awards or offering funds for just one phase

·         the level of applications in some areas had been low, was this inked to poor publicity of the fund

·         the spread of funds across the whole district.

It was explained that:

·         the area of Yateley had two of the 4 deprivation areas in Hart and that within the scoring criteria deprivation levels had been considered.

·         no assessment had been undertaken of organisations’ accounts, however the projects had to be able to show they were self-sustaining once the funding ended. 

·         applicants had been informed that they have been recommended for funding, subject to approval.

·         support would be given to non-successful applicants.

·         the consideration of partial awards had been made but applicants had to have a completed project to meet UKSPF requirements.

·         The team had publicised the bidding process across the whole district and had worked with Town and Parish Councils, stakeholder organisations, Here for Hart Forum and had also launched an early expression of interest period to publicise the opportunity for fundraising.

Cllr Thomas left at 20.35.

The Chairman summarised the views of many Members of the committee as having concerns about the scoring criteria, the way it had been applied and therefore the outcomes of it. Additionally significant concerns were voiced about the shift in the boundary between the two work streams after the event. The rejection of the consideration of match -funding.

A Motion was proposed by Councillor Dorn and seconded by Councillor Butcher.  

At this time, we do not recommend this paper for approval at Cabinet for the reasons of, concern for the scoring system, the change to funding boundaries and the lack of matched funding.

The vote was not unanimous.

A recorded vote was held on the Motion:  

For: Butcher, Butler, Davies, Dorn, Farmer, Smith, Worlock

Abstentions: Engström, Harward, Vernon

Against: None.  

The Motion was CARRIED.