Agenda item

Consider 6 applications for funding:

a)      Reston & Auchencrow Community Council – Play park improvements (£10,000)

b)      Cockburnspath Community Enterprise – Community Shop (£15,000)

c)      Duns PlayFest – Community Festival (£4,000)

d)      Abundant Borders – Community garden, Todlaw, Duns (£8,000)

e)      Coldstream Gateway Association – Floral display (£1,800)

f)       Ayton Heritage – Preservation of ruins of St Dionysius (£2,538)

Please Note that the Community Fund 2020/21 is currently over-subscribed.

(Assessments and Community Fund information attached.)

5.1       The Chairman reminded the members that the Fund was currently over-subscribed and there were six applications, totalling just over £41,000 for consideration at the meeting.  The Chairman further advised that there were a further seven applications pending which were still to be assessed, and they added up to just under £81,000.  As there may be other organisations who would also wish to submit applications, the meeting would need to consider how best to deal with the current applications and the others.  Representatives from each of the applications were available to answer any questions about their projects. Gillian Jardine, SBC Locality Development Co-ordinator, gave details of the criteria used for the assessment of applications, those assessments having been circulated with the agenda for the meeting, and then presented each assessment.  Ms Jardine further advised that there was £25,848.65 available in the Fund.  The six applications were:

a)      Reston & Auchencrow Community Council – Play park improvements (£10,000)

b)      Cockburnspath Community Enterprise – Community Shop (£15,000)

c)      Duns PlayFest – Community Festival (£4,000)

d)      Abundant Borders – Community garden, Todlaw, Duns (£8,000)

e)      Coldstream Gateway Association – Floral display (£1,800)

f)       Ayton Heritage – Preservation of ruins of St Dionysius (£2,538)

5.2       The Chairman commented that all the applications seemed to be first class projects and thanked the communities for coming up with them, and also the officers for their work in assessing the projects against the Fund criteria.  The applications were to be considered by the Area Partnership, with agreement on funding preferably reached by consensus (i.e. widespread agreement).  Where consensus was not possible, then SBC Elected Members would make the final decision, with the Chairman of the Area Partnership having a casting vote if required, should there be an even split amongst the SBC Elected Members.  Owing to the Fund being over-subscribed and not all applications being assessed and therefore before the meeting, there followed considerable discussion on how to deal with matters.  The following points were put forward:

·           Projects should be considered on their own merits, with no % reduction to the amount to be granted applied across the board

·           There were quite significant differences between the 6 projects, making it difficult to make a decision

·           Match funding should be used as a criteria for assessment

·           Match funding should not be used as a criteria for assessment

·           Should impact and value to the community be taken into account

·           Should decisions be deferred until all applications had been assessed

·           Should the Fund have a closing date set and was a “fast track” application given priority

·           Consideration should be given to those projects which were time limited due to the nature of the project, or had time limitations on match funding

·           Should the Community Fund be released in tranches throughout the year with closing dates, and an assessment spreadsheet connected to the Fund criteria to allow a view to be formed

·           It was difficult to compare such a disparate set of projects

·           Scoring criteria and weighting should form part of future assessment

·           All projects had merits but there was not enough funding for all of them

·           The quality of each bid needed to be assessed

·           The sustainability of each project could also be considered

5.3       Those attending the meeting considered various options to consider the applications but could not come to a consensus.  The SBC Elected Members discussed whether to defer a decision until further information could be brought forward.

            AGREED

(a)     that a special meeting of the Berwickshire Area Partnership would be held on Thursday 17 December to consider the 6 assessed applications to the Community Fund; and

(b)     Officers would present to that meeting a matrix which would include details of those projects which were time limited, in regard to the nature of the project, and/or whether there were other funding consequences for those projects with match funding.