 Diolch, rwy'n credu'r fawr. Mae'n peirio'n mewn hwblion arlaeddwr ac amlwgio'r fawr ar gyfer llyw ac ymwyafol gofynnol sydd ar hyn o'r fawr o'r fawr. Wel Canolawnau'r grin cyfnod yra'r bydd'r Comitib Llywodraeth Br fod yn llawer o hynny. Maecalledwyd yr hwblion yn y fawr o'r Comitib Llywodraeth yn credu'r fawr o'r fawr, a o gyflym y Swyrein, mae'n holl o'r holl o'r fawr o'r fawr, Diolch Peithiau. Mae hynny'n gyffinethio'r gyflawni, a'r cyflawni gyflym ddaeth i'r hynny'n meddwl, mae'n hynny'n gwneud iawn i ni'r ddweud i'r newydd yn ôl i'n rhaid i'r oeddod. Mae hynny'n gwaith o bethau amser yn y diseud o'i ei cyveffin. os y troi'r cyd-dweud o defnyddio cysdan? Yn ei wneud, os yw'r cysymau cyd? Rwyf dechreu wrth gwrth i'w ddiwrnod. Yna yw dechreu y sgolwyr, Su Ellington, awhile yr Ynattbyd Cymruol Cymruol. Mae'r cerddolul i'r cymaint o'u cymaint, ymdinesio yw i'r cymaint o'u cymaint o'u cyfaintol yng nghymru, y cwmhysgwyddiol, yng nghymru John Williams, sy'n ymdweud yw'r gweithio. Mae'n gwneud y rai cyfnodau ar ysgrifennu i'r cyfnodd y Gwmhysgwyddiol. Yng nghymru Williams yn yw'r gweithio i'r cyfnoddau i'r cyfnoddau. Felly, ydych chi'n gweithio'r gweithio, Felly chi'n meddwl chi'n maes y mynd i'u cysylltu eenderddionwn i gael ymweld? Dw i ddod. Mae'r angen yn lladau i'r hyn, ac mae gennym'n y ddim yn y cydwyr ystod, a'r ffordd tref. Mae'r angen yn cydwyr, Bill Handley. Mae'n gwybod i'r angen gwaith y Dynidus a'r Rhwyllion. Dwi'n dod i'n gwybod i'r ddiddordeb gynnig o ddiddordeb i'r 我們fynol? I believe we have Catherine Hawkes. Yes, thank you very much Catherine Hawkes on the community's manager here at Southcams. Sorry, I'm just Cecilia Murphy-Roads. Yes, thank you Cecilia Murphy-Roads, development officer and presenting the community chest grants. Leslie McFarlane. Hello, Leslie McFarlane, development officer for health and well-being. Thank you. Peter MacDonald, councillor Peter MacDonald, would you like to introduce yourself? Yes, hello, good afternoon councillor MacDonald representing Duxford Ward. And councillor John Williams, would you like to introduce yourself? Yes, hello there, good afternoon. I'm John Williams, I'm one of the members for Fendin, and for Bourne Ward I also lead member for finance. Thank you. Right, so can we do declarations of interest? Do any members have interests to declare in relation to any item of business on this agenda? If an interest subsequently becomes apparent later in the meeting you could raise it, but it would be better if we have pre-warning. Good, we'll move on to item three. We have the minutes which were circulated over a week ago of the 26th of November. Can I go through them page by page and make sure that you think they are true record? Page one, page two, page three, and that's as far as we go. Everybody happy with those? Right, I will sign them later. Number four, come in to chair's funding applications. Members I would like to explain how I propose to manage this item. Firstly I will call upon Cecilia Murphy-Roads to introduce the report. We will then take each application in turn and I will call upon Cecilia to provide an overview of the application. Then I will invite each member to indicate and we'll have our discussion. We'll see whether there's a clear consensus. Cecilia, would you like to introduce please? Thank you very much chair. We have the report opening which will be explained that we have the community chair's grant of the total of £58,140. We've got the ring-fenced amount of £10,000 of the Bivoc Diversity Grant and also the £50,000 ring-fenced of the community-led plans in the current pot. You can see in point eight we have that summarised in a table. With today's current applications coming in for this month we only will have one of those. It's going to be quite month comparatively. That is in Appendix A which brings us to a total applied for this month of £401.91 from the community chest pot. I can now go through Appendix A if that's okay. Yes please. This application, which is CHPHFLJK, its reference number is from the First Sauston Boys and Girls Brigade. They're a community group based in Sauston. The application is for basketball hoops to be fitted into their church hall. They have put forward for their full amount of £401.91. This application is supported by their district councillor, Councillor Milne's. They have also, since we last spoke, sought to support from their parish council. Haven't had confirmation of that as yet. However previously the parish council has supported them with financial support of £200, which wasn't in the paperwork that went through to yourself. Apologies, it's a supplementary piece of information that's come through since it was supplied to yourselves. The applicants have confirmed that the parish council ordered the £200 in previous spring to cover the annual fees, which has allowed them to continue functioning as part of the national organisation and covering their training costs and so forth. This was due to their member subscription, which had been waived due to the not meeting in person from COVID restrictions. They haven't applied for any other funding sources because this is the total amount that they're applying for. Then the final fitting of the basketball hoops will be done by volunteers. There are no actual labour costs associated with this particular application. That is the total summary of Appendix A. Thank you. Members? Can I just make a comment, Chair? Please do. In the paperwork that we have, I think that Cecilia said that Councillor Milne supports this. That's correct, isn't it? It's just that in the paperwork that we have, that doesn't reflect that. Apologies, that was another supplementary piece that came through in the interim because it was a slightly earlier supplement. I wanted to check that I just heard that, but there hasn't been any response from the parish council yet. Is that correct? Not as yet. They said that Saulton Group was seeking it from parish council, but they haven't had final confirmation yet. Okay, thanks. Any questions I had were the ones that Councillor Dauntons raised. I don't have any great problems with this one. I think you need to have your mic a bit closer. I was just saying that Councillor Dauntons asked the questions that I was going to ask, and I don't see any great problems with this submission at all. Thank you. Peter MacDonald, any comments? Not from me, Chair. It looks all in order and looks like a good project. Fine. Are we happy to proceed with this one? I've just got one question, though. Obviously, it's good that the Boys and Girls Brigade will use these hoops. Do we know which other groups will actually use them? There's a list here on the second page of the application. Yes, I don't have the specifics, Councillor Dauntons, as to which groups, only that it is youth groups from those subsequent seven parishes. But I could explore that if that's something you want me to find out. No, I just wanted to check that we... I mean, it's fine that they're asking for them. I just wanted to check how widely used... Councillor MacDonald knows how widely used this particular venue is. Only anecdotally that I know from my ward, both Duxford and Babraham groups are using it, so that's as much as I know. It is a relatively small amount, and they are doing quite a bit of helping themselves. I feel that everybody seems happy about that. Yep. So, Erin, we are agreed. Thank you. We will move on to the next item five, Children and Young People's Grant. I feel this may be a little bit more complicated. Would you like me to proceed, Councillor Ellington? Yes, please. Okay, so this is the Children and Young People's Grant. This budget became available as a result of unspent money from the expansion of the Mobile Warden scheme, and it was decided by Grant's Advisory Committee members in a workshop over the summer that the money should go towards supporting the well-being of children and young people in recognition of the ongoing impacts of COVID-19. So, we've received 16 applications from a range of community organisations, which received a total of £92,944.33, about £38,000 budget. Two of these applicants were received from Scouts Groups, both at Northstone-Trumpington, and they were requesting capital funding, which we would recommend should be sought from community chests. So, we've sort of removed those two applications from this pot. So, that takes the amount sought down to about £82,920. It's not quite tough decisions to make. We met as an officer panel to review each of the applications using a weighted scoring system, which has been used for the zero carbon community grants. So, I think it will be something that you're familiar with, and the officer panel scoring can be found in Appendix A. One other thing that I'd like to note as well is that the funds that were applied for included small amounts of capital funding. There isn't a lot, but again, if we wanted to sort of try and make this sort of budget go a little bit further, we could direct the capital funds to be sought from the community chest budget so that we're only seeking revenue funding for some of these applications. And in conversation with some of the schemes as well, we could proceed with distributing smaller amounts of funding. It would still enable some of these projects to proceed, but just on a smaller scale. But I mean, we can go through that application by application. So, I guess the best way to start is if we were to turn to Appendix A. And as you can see, we've got the officer panel scores here. So, if we were to allocate the full amount of funding for the first two, three, six applications, then these are the applications that scored the highest in terms of meeting our objectives and aims of the funding. Yes, Peter. This is just a suggestion on process and the way to approach. First of all, I don't want to second-guess the officer scores because I'm sure you really went through these very thoroughly. So, in terms of process, I don't want to really look at that column in terms of should it be 82 rather than 84 or anything else. So, from my point of view as a committee member, I'm looking at the amount applied for column, and it just occurs to me, and please guide me, because I may be jumping to conclusions here, that because we've got for Orchard Park, Let's Cook, and Unique Feet, quite large amounts of £8,000, that it just, when I first read the papers, when I got them from Aaron, it just occurred to me that if we gave those three slightly less, so in other words, still made an award, but gave those three slightly less, we maybe could afford to do the next, you know, at least part of the next three on the list, not completely fund them because they're £5,000 each. So, I just like some, that's just a suggestion and some overall comments. So, with regards to the Orchard Park project, that's a two-phase project. The first phase is where the majority of the costs will come from. So, it's 5,950 towards phase one, and that's where they'll be engaging with youths, and then the remaining 2,000 would be spent on a project or activities designed by the young people. So, that hasn't been specified yet. So, it could be that we fund phase one and we could direct them, I'm just looking, they do have match funding already from Romsey Mill, but there isn't any match funding, let's say, from the parish council. I don't know whether they, we could direct them to the parish council to help fund phase two, but that would be a suggestion. Let me just look at the other... Bill? Sorry, Leslie, can I just interject? Another question was that all or part of this could perhaps be requested from the CSP. Am I correct? Is that something that we could do? Catherine? Yes, there is OPCC funding being made available, I think, from January for a community fund that could be applied to, but it would need to be applied to by the CSP on behalf of a group to undertake a project. So, we could apply for some or all of this from that fund, but not obviously guaranteed that it then happens because the decision wouldn't be ours. It seems to me that it... I personally would like just to go through each of the first six applications because I feel we do need to have an understanding of what is being proposed, and some of these... OK, the scoring has been done, but some of these are for relatively long-term projects, whereas others are for very much shorter projects, and I feel the amount of money that's involved... I would like to feel, and maybe you can tell me, that it's about how much money is being allocated per person, if you like, that's being cared for. Do you understand what I'm saying? I'm sure that's been dealt into the scoring, but it just... Yes, it has. I just wondered whether Leslie wanted to take you through what's actually part of that scoring, just to give you the headline information on what the scoring comprises of, because the value for money is one of those things. Yes. Can you do that very briefly, please? I can. We had five headings, or four aims, which attributed to 70% of the score, and then we looked at the value for money as the final 30%. So, for instance, with the Orchard Park score... Sorry, I've got so many pages open at the moment. If you go down to Appendix C, which is on page 35, the Orchard Park... Well, I've given the three individual officer scores, but it comes out as scoring quite highly on additional value, or value for money. We gave it a score of eight, nine, and nine out of ten. And other than the Romsey Mill, I think those two got the highest scores for value for money, if that helps. Yes, I did note that. It does seem to me that some of these amounts are large, and so there's an element in me that wants to say that we should be comparative in the amount of money we give to each fund. Clare. I would just like to ask for a little more information on the Orchard Park. This is a strong application which addresses a particular issue within a given locality and clearly meets all the aims and objectives of the funding. What exactly is the project? So there are relatively high levels of antisocial behaviour in Orchard Park at the moment, and it's being the perpetrators, let's say, tend to be young children aged 11 to 13, and they're doing things like kicking in community doors, smashing windows. It's that kind of low level, boredom type crime, and they feel, and it's as a result, I guess, a lack of amenities or opportunities for young children to engage in more positive behaviour outside of school. So this is, again, I think Romsey Mill will be recruited. They will employ some youth workers to work with these young children to, I think it's about positive engagement in how they want to shape the community in which they live in, and from that would come phase two. So once they have a series of engagement with specialist youth workers, these young people will be able to determine what kind of positive activities they would like to see in their community. Is there anything that you want to add to that, Catherine? So the £8,000 is to pay the youth workers? It's a combination of, yes, it's youth worker and it's community hall, hall higher, venue higher, sorry, I couldn't think of the word, venue higher, and let me just look, I've listed it on another table, Orchard Park. It's effectively detached youth work, so it's not about setting up a youth club, it's about working with young people in a detached way to meet them in the location where they find themselves and help understand their life situation and what they're going through and why they have reached the point that they've reached where they're getting involved in these antisocial behaviours, as it says it has been quite bad in Orchard Park. So partners have come together to bring a community support partnership together to try and address some of the issues and it's come through that group, it's through that group this application has come. And the aims and objectives of this fund, it's all about building social value and personal resilience or individual resilience. And it really, because it was such a specific project, tackling a specific problem, it's just involving the work of the parish council and other youth groups in the area. It demonstrated a community coming together to tackle a problem and I think that's why we found it such a strong application. It has come up with CSP issues in Orchard Park. I mean, in terms of the original reason for setting up this fund, which was COVID related, does it fit with those aims as well? Well, it's about mental health and well-being. So it's not just COVID related. We had two applications relating to ASB type issues, two applications relating to sort of diet and well-being and the remainder were all mental health type applications. So we didn't specify that it needed to be just mental health type applications, but applications that addressed young people's well-being in general. Can you assure me that we can find youth workers in the current shortage of finding appropriate carers and so on to do this sort of work? I believe that the Orchard Park parish council or Orchard Park council have liais with Romsey Mill in order to put this application together. So I do believe they have the support of Romsey Mill who will be putting forward some of their youth workers. Councillor John Williams, you've got your hand up. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Chair. One of the things I was looking for and in some of the reports you've given us an indication, Leslie, of how many, and this goes back to Sue's point, how many people this will, young people this will reach. What I haven't got with Orchard Park is a field for how many young people will be involved with this project. There's no figure on that. Whereas some of the other bids are about empowering people to go out and improve things in the district when the locality. Take, for example, the food one where training 20 volunteers to deliver a cookery workshop, for example. So we've got some idea of the reach of these schemes. Orchard Park, I don't have a feel. Are there a handful of young people who are causing these problems? Is it one that's causing these problems? Is it dozens who are causing these problems? I don't get any sense of the size of the problem. I did wonder why we had scored it so highly, to be honest with you, Leslie, compared with some of these other schemes. Again, I think... So I do have an issue with Orchard Park Community Council in as far as their application. Obviously we're only seeing a summary in these reports. But I feel that there are other projects that actually would appear to be doing more, using their money more in a more cost-value-for-money way to an Orchard Park, which is for very good reasons. They want to reduce the anti-social behaviour in their area. But I've got no idea of the scale of the issue there and actually how many young people this is going to reach. Because in terms of money, it is £8,500. If it's only a couple of kids that are causing problems, that's an awful lot of money to be spending on a couple of kids. I'm just looking at their application to get a feel, to see if I can... I've just had that, I've just flicked through it. While I can't give you a number, I understand through the CSP that it is dozens of young people, it's not just one or two. But it does break out what they will do with it to be running 20 detached youth work sessions, 24 engagement sessions. And their idea is that the young people will then be involved in a project that will support the local community to be determined by them, which is what the phase two of the project would be. OK, thanks, Captain. That puts it into context. That's much better than... Sorry, the summary, as I say, I had trouble with the summary and there was very little there to understand what the issue is and how they were going to approach it. So, thank you for that. Thanks. I think I would look at this in a slightly different way and say the actions of this group of young people kicking in doors and so on is actually affecting a lot of people in the community. It may only be half a dozen people or the names of offenders, but their actions are affecting a lot of people and perhaps reducing the enjoyment of the residents of that parish. So, I would look at it that way. What concerns me, probably, more is that, you know, are we... You know, why us? You know, on the face of it, it's something I really feel like I want to support. But, you know, are there other agencies that should be supporting this as well, sort of the CSP, or you mentioned, you know, the police and whether or not other agencies are going to be involved? But don't get me wrong. I like the idea of this. I think if we can get social workers involved and get people, maybe steer people from the wrong path on to a better one, then that's a good thing to do. Can I... I think we've focused... We have focused quite a bit on Orchard Park, whereas, in fact, we're really being asked if we will accept the first six applications, and perhaps my question is why did they choose unique feet, foot to feet, which got 73 instead of blue smile or Cambridge joint play? My question really is about if you took out unique feet and put in blue smile, you could include one of the others that's about 4,000 pounds, and so have seven projects instead of six. And I just would like to hear what officers feel about that sort of idea. That's it. Sorry to cut across you there. Leslie, if you were going to say something, that's exactly what I was going to say. You're not being asked to just or recommended to make a decision based on those first six alone. We've just drawn the line there, so you can see how far the funding goes based on our scoring. If you want to, you can do exactly that and go through each one and do want to fund this for this reason and we don't want to fund this. And as long as you can give reasons, then we can explain why those applications haven't been successful. And that's absolutely fine. Or we can do what Leslie has said and take some elements of each one out if they're more suited to something like the community chest. So it's absolutely fine to do either. Maybe I need to ask John whether he would be happy for us to possibly take out capital funding and put it into a different grant package? I mean, that's a possibility. That is something that we could look at and say use some of the community chest money to pick up on the capital cost of some of these schemes. Because they would still meet the criteria for the community chest fund. So that to my mind is a way round of trying to actually give more of these schemes an opportunity to at least have the support, revenue support to enable their project to go ahead while we pick up the cost of the capital involved. On that point of actually unique feat, I was going to come to unique feat because I noticed in the report there was a question mark over its sustainability in that once, you know, whether or not they would be able to continue once our funding had run out. And yet I found that it's the officer's score that hired in, say, Blue Smile and the Cambridge Joint play. Again, I wonder why the officers did score, did consider unique feat, which had got, you know, the same scores as those others, put that in rather than not one of the others. But maybe your way forward is to deal with the capital costs of these schemes under community chest and take the money from the community chest and how that would then affect, you know, the number of schemes that we would be able to support. How many schemes would we then be able to support? Well, it doesn't actually order things greatly because the creative cooking application, which was 5,722, only £475 of that was for capital funding for items of equipment. And then the Histon and Impington, which was a total application of 4,190, only £150 could be apportioned as capital funding. So that didn't really, it's only kind of removed about 625 pounds from the pot. I think if we were to go back to whether we can partially fund some of these schemes because if we look at something like, let's go back to unique feet, for example, I think it scored well on social disadvantage because it directly helped group marginal people. But they were looking for kind of seed funding and a lot of their funding was going towards community outings. So if we were to fund less, it just means that they would have fewer outings. So their project could still proceed but not at the full, with the full amount of activities that they had planned. And the same goes for some of the other applications. Chair, could I just ask please because that's quite a general point there. So unique feet talks not just about the outings but that the grant would pay for group coordinator. Now what we don't have here is any breakdown and it's a very round sum of money just as the Orchard Park is a very round sum of money. And I think that really quite like us to look at the possibility of, as Peter was saying earlier on, to spread this pot a bit more widely. And I just wondered why those were very round sums of money when the others are very exact sums of money and whether we could do some spreading around. Because if you look at the scoring, we've got two applications at 73 and two at 72. So I think we ought to look at those more closely and see if we can give funds to more groups. If we can have a look at unique feeds at their application. Just a moment. It does seem to me that we're actually trying to make decisions on too many variables with inadequate information available to us on which to make that decision. If you see what I mean, we hone in on one or another. And that doesn't tell us about the other 10 that are behind it. Is there a way forward in how urgent is this decision perhaps is what I would like to know? Sorry, Bill. I'm going to suggest actually, Chair, that what we might do is to go down and look at each of the projects and say, in principle, that they look like the kind of thing we should be supporting. And then perhaps look at, well, first of all, we can look at the capital, shifting the capital out of it into the community chest. Although I take what Leslie said that it might not make a huge amount of difference. But yeah, that might be the way forward. And then I'm willing to accept the officer's judgment, the officer's scores. I'm very happy to just accept those and then to go down the list. If we say yay or nay to all of these projects, and maybe we can ask officers to go away and look to see if there's a way of spreading the funding more, you know, putting the funding, allowing other projects to gain something from this, would that seem a reasonable thing to do? I certainly would like to spread the projects as far as we possibly can. I saw you nodding, John. Are you saying this is not an urgent-urgent decision? Well, to be honest with you, I spoke to Joseph about having this meeting at all, actually, given the current circumstances. And I did say to Joseph that I couldn't see why we couldn't have delayed, postponed this meeting to January. But I understand that there was some pressure to go ahead with it. But I have to say, from what I've heard so far and for what members are saying, I think maybe we need to have a bit more, you need to have a bit more information in front of you to enable you to be able to, you know, fully look at these schemes and to give a view on them. I see, I think Catherine, you were probably first, and then Peter and then Aaron. OK, thank you. In terms of the timescales, there are published timescales that we've tried to work to so that grant recipients, whoever gets those grants, has them in time for us to be able to run enough months of their project and then be able to feedback to us how they have managed those projects and what the outcomes have been. Because if you remember the original purpose of this was to run this as a pilot meeting some kind of children young people strand within the service support grants when they're relaunched in their next three-year phase. So we wanted to have as many months under our belt in terms of understanding how those projects had gone before we reviewed it, which will have to happen in the summer because we need to do that in time for the budget requirements to start budget setting in September. So yes, one month possibly wouldn't have made much difference if we didn't have time to get the grants out to everybody. We did want to try to do that before Christmas so that they could start work and start recruitment if they've got recruitment to start in January. I appreciate you probably not got every single bit of detail from the applications there, but each one is sometimes five or six pages long. So we did just try to summarise them for you so that you weren't going through reams and reams of paper. So apologies if you don't feel you've got to be able to make those decisions, but they're really quite lengthy in some cases. If you'd like, we can go through each individual one as Bill has said and just look at what's capital, what's not, what can be diverted, what can't. Look at whether there is, for example, like with Orchard Park, two stages that we could perhaps fund the first and not the second and therefore hold over some money for another organisation. We could just go through and answer any questions you've got about each one with the applications in front of us. I wasn't really suggesting we did it today, though. I thought what we could do is based on the information we have we can say in principle we like the, you know, there may, I don't think there are, but if there are any here that we say, look, we just don't want to support this, we know where we are. We could go through a green principle and we are supportive of these and then you can go away, the officers can go away and just go through a little bit of the detail and see if we can spread a little bit further. That's my point. Rather than sitting in here for a couple of hours and trying to go through lots and lots of detail, I don't know. I thought that is what we would do today because that's what we've done with the zero carbon communities and those sorts. I think we've gone through each one. I think we're probably 45 minutes in now so it might not work. Okay, that's fine. Peter. Thanks, chair. I'm trying to pick up on the threads and a couple of suggestions to move this forward. First of all, I don't particularly want to make a decision right here and now and that's just because there's a little bit of extra information but just to reassure officers, lots and lots of information. First of all, as a guiding principle, I'd like to be able to say that we could fund two thirds of the projects that have been as a sort of guideline because at the moment we have just under just under half. The only way we can do that clearly is we reallocate some of the monetary amounts so as I said in the start I don't want to question the officer's scores at all. I'm sure they've done an excellent job on that. I have no problem with that. So if we look at the capital, if we look how much money that would potentially free up and then the only other thing I would like between now and a discussion in January is how many individuals, how many children do we think realistically this would reach? If project A reaches 100 100 kids and project B reaches 20, I wouldn't say that we just turned down the project that reaches 20 because if it's very valuable for those 20 that's still a good project but just give us some sense in that. That's the only other thing I'd like to see and then I think we're ready to make a final decision in January. Aaron. Thanks Jay. It was just to resolve the bit of confusion around any pressure in January. So previously we had a planning inquiry booked into the chamber for the back-end of January at the beginning of February but with the introduction of plan B that has actually been moved online so the January grants committee can go ahead as originally scheduled so there is no pressure as far as that's concerned. Right. So or is there an option that we just present it as you would community chest and make the decision from the application forms if you feel that there's not enough information We've actually included in our scoring we've included that sort of value for money because we've looked for how many children, how many families how many community members whether it will result in jobs and training for people that's come under our value for money assessment so I appreciate you want to see all of that detail but that was in our thinking at that point. Clare. Yes, I really would like us to see I'm very pitching myself but I would like us to be able to fund more of the applications that we've got in front of us and actually if you look at the scores there isn't a great deal of difference between many of them and just coming back to again what I said earlier the two that are very round figures of 8,000 I just would like to know why they're very round and if possible by giving those to a little less we have more money to spread around I'd be happier with that I think if I understand us all and please correct me if you think I'm overstating it does seem that we are trying to deal with far too many variables at this moment but the overriding urge is that we should fund more projects rather than the view that have been identified and we would really like if the officers could look at the projects and make proposals on how we could increase the number of projects that we fund by reducing perhaps the capital funding but also perhaps reducing as you suggested with Orchard Park and there may be others that are two stages or could be reduced in size so that we could at least touch more communities with this very generous fund that's been found and see if we could help more areas to get started to kickstart something and make it an event for a larger number of communities Bill I think also quite good to have an idea as to whether something like the Orchard Park thing if we give them £7,999 would that mean that the whole thing folds up, can't happen or is there a lesser sum I doubt that any of these would not go ahead if we were to offer a lower sum a slightly lower sum that's my point none of them are going to turn round if you don't give us the full amount we are doing anything I doubt that's the option I'd quite like to investigate that a little bit just so that we can spread the money a bit wider Just to add so for instance Blue Smile that's therapist fees so if we were to fund them less than they've asked for then they wouldn't be as many I guess they just wouldn't be able to reach as many children the Cambridge Fire and Rescue that's the cost of the course children attend a course I think that that's a fixed fee I don't think that we could reduce the cost of that one Cambridge Jazz that's musician fees venue fees, instrument rental fees they said they could accept less but this would reduce the amount of outreach that they had planned Cambridge Joint play that was the cost to cover outings transport and staffing fees so that was two trips per month so we could fund them less than they've requested creative cooking that was mostly revenue so again staffing costs with a small amount of capital funding Histon and Impington again that was the cost of a therapist to support young people at Histon and Impington Village College again if we if we gave them less I'm sure that it could still proceed they just wouldn't be able to train as many young people the kite trust that was the cost to cover youth worker salary so again it would just reduce the reach the Let's Cook project that was the that session worker fees again we've talked about Orwell Eco Youth that was youth worker fees I've called it something else but it was a delegation of Peruvian children coming over that was the cost of airline tickets but that scored our lowest because it didn't meet our objectives anyway Romsie Mill that salary, travel revenue and activity costs Sorston is a youth worker again I spoke to them they said the project could proceed without total funding just fewer sessions provided and unique feet is group coordinator plus activities so it looks like the funding could go ahead again but just reduced amount of activities if we would give them less so I think there is there is an option to reduce the fees it's just I think understanding from each of these organisations what the impact would be and is there a minimum amount that we could give them that would enable their projects to still proceed what I don't I think what I wouldn't want to do is give them a reduced amount which they couldn't achieve very much at all so I guess it's understanding what a workable budget would be I suppose my feeling and possibly John's is that there's far too many nice round numbers like 7,000 6,500 5,000, 4,000 and nobody I don't feel has broken down exactly this going to cost them sorry John I'm sure they have and like all these things you tend to round up on these various different elements but I come back to the actual officer's comments and I take on board what Bill said about and Peter about not querying the scores but take Cambridge Fine Rescue for example the officer's actually saying that the panel felt that the scheme would be better funded from the Cambridge safety partnership now I would have thought therefore the score would have been zero because your view is that actually this isn't where our fund is not the place they should be getting money for but that wasn't one of the criteria for the scoring as to whether or not it was eligible therefore we scored it on the five headings that you can see in the appendix okay okay I agree I accept that but you're saying here actually should we really be giving them any money and there are other and I say the other one the unique foot where you've questioned their sustainability so there are a couple in here actually that you could say we're not going to support these because the officers have suggested that although they meet our criteria they don't feel that we ought to be funding them so again it's more than just salami slicing what we have it's actually going in and looking at what the officers have actually said and perhaps the officers themselves apart from the scoring perhaps what you need to present to the committee is actually your view on you know what level of funding we should give each of these organisations and so for example the Cambridge Fire and Rescue although it scored really well your view would be that we shouldn't be funding them okay that's noted then we didn't think we should bring you a recommendation that was that detailed we had anticipated going through each one one by one and then at the end going back and saying okay on basis of what we've discussed we'll give this one this much and this one this much and I agree with you Caffee and I didn't either but sitting here listening to the members of the committee I think that's really it's obviously they don't have sufficient information so is that the way forward for us is everybody happy that we should ask the officers to look at each one and provide us with information which will allow us to make judgments about whether we can increase the number of recipients of this fund yes I'd like to see it but I don't want to hold it up too long no we want it to be as soon as we can yeah are you happy I don't think you are but will you accept Catherine that the meeting at the end of January will re-look at this and move forward quickly from there we will now need to bring it back yes in January and perhaps we can have a chat with some of you afterwards about what exactly what information other than the entire application form you know what would help you make that decision any better than sort of us describing to you what's within it and then going through each one cos I'm just worried we'll be in the same position so I just really want to make sure we got it right for you next time I think members just need a bit more guidance to be honest on each one thank you then move on to the can I duck out here I have a meeting with Herman Street that started at three o'clock and if I can be excused thank you very much anyway Merry Christmas everyone if I don't see you next week is down to see you in the new year Merry Christmas bye thank you right item six service support grants to the bond protector sixth month update report yep so this is so as part of the contractual agreement that we have with our service support grant recipients those that are in receipt of £15,000 or more are required to provide a kind of mid-year performance update with the exception of CCVS who are only received £10,000 but because of the nature of the work that they do they provide us with a mid-year report and really this is just an update just to some background information I am in regular contact with them so I'm very happy with the performance to date in spite of the kind of pressures that the economic environment is impacting on the voluntary sector I think it is very difficult to find volunteers at the moment I understand actually to recruit them are there any questions about item six Bill I was going to propose that we, I think it's a good report and I would be happy to accept this report as it is Leslie and Catherine are keeping a watching brief and I'm happy to go with that Claire I do have a question about care network and this is related to county funding for care network so we put in funding for community transport where does that how does that match with the county funding actually I'm not hopefully Catherine I haven't left yet so I'm happy to answer so we give a number of organisations funding to towards their community transport services and in some cases the county council also funds those organisations and the funding to care network is really to provide an infrastructure support function and training in heavy lifting and health and safety and those sorts of things there are a central source of training and support for those organisations that are delivering community transport and other good neighbour schemes okay so we fund the transport and county funds the rest is that it we're funding a contribution towards the cost of care network supporting those community transport organisations but some of them and I don't think I could list them but some of them also receive funding direct from the county to the service itself I've come across care network in county committee so I just wanted to check up on that on the community transport we've talked about this before haven't we we've talked about that it's quite patchy and that depends on the volunteers and has that been as Sue was saying in respect of other things has it been badly impacted by volunteers recently my understanding is that the volunteers are picking up again I think what they've had to do is adapt to their services so prior to Covid they weren't too prescriptive about where they could or for what purpose their car teams could be used but as a result of Covid many of them are just focusing on medical trips alone so it's a GP appointment or a hospital appointment and not so many social appointments but again that's on a it's that's not repeated across the district but it is really on a location by location basis depending on the popularity of the scheme and the number of volunteers they have but my understanding was at the beginning of Covid they lost a lot of their older because the kind of demographic of their volunteer tend to be over 60 they tend to be retired so they lost a lot of those volunteers who weren't themselves having to isolate and as a result of that they've been able to recruit younger a kind of younger network of people so my understanding is that it is picking up again so it's not at the levels that it was pre Covid but it is better than it was okay thanks that's helpful thank you any other comments on the report Peter yeah just briefly from me just to say thanks again to citizens advice you know with the changes in universal credit you can see from the issues list that they've had a lot of questions and a lot of things to deal with so well done to them I'll pass that on thank you right so we're all happy sorry Claire I can't see I've just got one other question the county's innovative cultivated fund do we push things in their direction yes we do so I know it's open again isn't it the latest round of funding is now over and we do we work very closely in signposting all applicants to that scheme okay I think the closing date is the 1st of February so I was just thinking about that in relation to some of the applications that came in for the fund that we've just been talking about okay thank you okay all happy thank you I think that is nearly the end we've just come to the date of the next meeting which is the 28th of January 10 o'clock presumably here but who knows yep right fine thank you everybody I'm sorry we didn't come to a conclusion because I think it's given officers additional work but it did seem there were just too many variables and that as you say the scoring was such that it was very difficult to judge between them I apologize I'll send out a quick email to all the applicants this afternoon just to let them know decisions have been deferred for a month just because of the complexity yeah