To note any substitution of Members made in accordance with Council Procedure Rules 19-22.

The following substitution of a Board Members had been made in accordance with Council Procedure Rules 19-22:

Councillor F.Thomson, for D.Bennett (Chairman). 

To note any apologies.

An apology for absence was received from Councillor D.Bennett (Chairman).  In the absence of the Chairman, Councillor I.Dean, was appointed Chairman for the meeting.

To confirm as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 19 October 2016 (previously circulated).

The Minutes of the meeting held on 19 October 2016 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Report of the Executive Director which provides details of the applications which have been received for Small Community Grants.

Members were advised that there had been grant applications for the sum of £21,940 with a remaining budget of £12,025. It was also noted that there were already applications received for the meeting in March 2017.

An application had been received for the amount of £2,000 for the replacement of high level windows in the auditorium.

Members commented that the application was not acceptable as it did not meet the criteria. They also noted that the application had not been signed.

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused for these reasons.

An application had been received for the amount of £2,000 to replace equipment for maintenance of the Bowls Greens.

It was noted that the application did not detail how the balance of funding would be raised. There was also concern that no budget had been set. Finally, Members required a breakdown of the demographic of the users of the club.

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused for these reasons, but the club be invited to re-apply to the March 2017 meeting with answers to the queries.

An application had been received for the amount of £2,000 to provide special seats for canoes to allow people with disabilities to sail safely.

Members commented that the applicant was a company which did not meet the criteria. Also, no diversity form had been provided.

Further discussion with Officers suggested that the application should, in fact, have been submitted by Herts Disability Sports Hub as they would be the final recipients of the seats and they met the criteria for a grant.

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused for these reasons and Herts Disability Sports Hub informed of the comments of the Board.

An application had been received for the amount of £2,000 to contribute to refurbishment costs of the village hall.

Members were in favour of this application, but did not feel that they could agree a grant of the full amount due to limited funds. It was agreed, therefore, that they would contribute to one of the elements of the work. An amount of £1,300 had been identified for exterior painting to include labour and materials and Members felt that this was an amount that they could agree to.

RESOLVED:

That a grant of £1,300 be awarded.

An application had been received for the amount of £1,400 for the purchase of display banners, leaflet stands and printing for the purposes of raising awareness of this condition.

Members felt that this was an item that should be covered by Health, however, they also recognised that funding for support groups was not easily obtained.

They considered that the figures given for printing were high, as was the cost of the display banners and they felt that there were less expensive alternatives.

Members agreed that this area of health was underfunded and they wanted to provide some support to this cause.

RESOLVED:

That a grant of £500 be awarded.

An application had been received for the amount of £2,000 to deliver e-safety workshops.

Members had previously supported this work and they commented that the feedback received from the previous grant was very impressive.

There were concerns about issues, as follows:

·         the application showed that there would be a profit from the workshops, but as a Community Interest Company, profit was not permitted. Members therefore wanted an explanation of this.

·         if the “profit” was in fact a permitted surplus, what would it be used for?

Members were supportive of the project, but commented that, if they were to agree a grant, it would be on the understanding that schools in Hatfield should be targeted this time and, only if the Hatfield schools were not willing to participate could the money be spent in Welwyn Garden City. The group would also need to provide information on why the Hatfield schools were not inclined to take part.

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused for these reasons and Excite-ed invited to apply in March 2017 subject to responses to the queries.

An application had been received for the amount of £700 to defray the costs of running the festival.

Members were concerned that the group appeared to rely on a grant from this Board and, so close to the event, little time was left to raise funds elsewhere if the application was cancelled.

However, the Board felt that the arts were beneficial and should be supported. Members therefore agreed to a grant of £350.

It was agreed that it should be suggested to the organisers of the event that they should start to seek funding earlier in the year. It was also suggested that there might be some benefit in taking part in some of the Hatfield events organised by others.

RESOLVED:

That a grant of £350 be awarded.

An application had been received for the amount of £2,000 for the purchase of protective equipment for team members.

It was noted that the application was not complete and no bank or budgetary information had been provided, despite several calls requesting it.

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused for these reasons.

An application had been received for the amount of £900 for training fees.

Members were informed that there were now a lot of girls’ teams playing from Lemsford and the club seemed to be going from strength to strength.

RESOLVED:

That a grant of £500 be awarded.

An application had been received for the amount of £2,000 towards funding of a musical event.

Members commented that the cost was high for two performances. They also felt that the theatre that was being used was expensive. Finally they had concerns regarding how easy it would be to guarantee that all of the participants were from Welwyn Hatfield.

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused for these reasons.

An application had been received for the amount of £1,575 for a visit by club users and their carers to Paradise Wildlife Park.

Members commented that they felt that this would fund individuals and was therefore against the criteria.

A suggestion was made that carers’ passports could be obtained which would give discounts to carers at some places.

However, Members were keen to support the club as they knew that they did a lot of good work. They therefore suggested that the club apply in March 2017 for a grant towards a celebration of the 50^th Anniversary.

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused for these reasons with an invitation to apply again in March 2017.

An application was received for the amount of £1,770 as a contribution towards five respite holidays for disabled people and their carers.

Members commented that whilst the idea of holidays for carers was worthwhile, this would only benefit five people when there were many that would benefit. They were also concerned about the method of identifying who would receive the holidays.

Furthermore, the application was from a company which, whilst providing a good service, was a commercial concern and therefore did not meet the criteria.

RESOLVED:

That the application be refused for these reasons.

An application was received for the amount of £1,595 towards the cost of refurbishing the summerhouse for use as a café.

Members felt that this was a really good project and commented that, by contributing they would be helping the group to become more self-sufficient, which could in turn mean that further grants were not required.

RESOLVED:

That a grant of £1,200 be awarded.