Agenda Item___4___
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY
Minutes of a special meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 31
January 2012 in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Holt Road, Cromer at 9.30 am.
Members Present:
Committee:
Mr E Seward (Chairman)
Mr B Smith
Mr N Smith
Mr R Smith
Mr P Terrington
Mr G Williams
Mrs A Claussen-Reynolds
Mrs A Green
Mr B Jarvis
Mr P Moore
Mr J Perry-Warnes
Mr R Reynolds
Officers in
Attendance:
The Deputy Chief Executive
Members in
Attendance:
Ms V Gay, Mrs A Fitch-Tillett, Mr P High, Mr T Ivory, Mr K Johnson, Mr J
Lee, Mrs A Moore, Ms B Palmer, Mr S Ward and Mrs V Uprichard
Democratic Services Officer (ED)
117 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
None received
118 SUBSTITUTES
Mr N Smith for Mr R Wright
119 PUBLIC QUESTIONS
Questions had been received in advance of the meeting. These were taken when the
item was considered.
120 ITEMS OF URGENT BUSINESS
None received
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
1
31 January 2012
121 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
Member(s)
Mrs A
ClaussenReynolds
Minute No.
Norfolk Community Foundation
Mr N Smith
122 NORTH NORFOLK
FRAMEWORK
Item
North Norfolk Big Society Fund
BIG
SOCIETY
FUND
–
Interest
Personal – is an
NNDC representative
on the Fakenham
Area Partnership
Personal – is involved
with an organisation
that had received
funds via the NCF
PROPOSED
OPERATIONAL
Councillor Trevor Ivory, Portfolio Holder for Localism and the Big Society introduced the
item. He explained that the same three funding streams were still proposed: community
grant giving, community capacity building and support for the voluntary sector. The
focus of the meeting was to consider the detail of the community grant giving aspect of
the Fund before it was presented to Full Council on 22 February 2012. The other two
streams would be provided via the voluntary sector and would be specified, costed and
monitored through a service level agreement (SLA). A three month extension to
Voluntary Norfolk’s existing contract was proposed to allow them additional time to put a
suitable support structure in place.
The Portfolio Holder drew the Committee’s attention to the allocation of the funding. The
total available for the launch in 2012/13 was £1.169 million, with £675,000
approximately being available on an ongoing basis. A remaining, unallocated sum was
from unspent funding for the Local Strategic Partnership. It was anticipated that some of
this money would be held back and used through subsequent years.
The Chairman introduced Mr Graham Tuttle, Director of the Norfolk Community Fund
(NCF). It was proposed that the funding stream for community grant giving would be
administered on behalf of the Council by the NCF. Mr Tuttle said that he would explain
the role of the Community Fund to the Committee and was willing to answer any
questions relating to their work. Several questions had been received in advance of the
meeting and it was agreed that these would be addressed by both The Portfolio Holder
and Mr Tuttle, where appropriate.
Ms Angela Simkiss, Project Manager of First Focus in Fakenham had submitted the
following questions:
a) When will there be a clear strategy for use by small charitable organisations to
enable them to present their services for commissioning opportunities and is it likely
to be before April 2014?
b) As much of the funding received by small charities from statutory bodies has now
effectively ceased and the prospect of gaining income from commissioning their
services is still very vague, could you advise as to the best way to maintain the
valuable local services currently offered by such organisations?
The Portfolio Holder said that support to charitable organisations was an important part
of the Big Society Fund and this would come through the service level agreements with
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
2
31 January 2012
the voluntary sector. He added that funding from the community grant giving fund was
also available to charities. In response to the second question, he said that the
commissioning of services was not within the remit of the Big Society Fund. However, it
was part of the Council’s wider agenda. It was within the corporate plan as an objective
and the County Council were also considering options.
Mrs Gloria Lisher, Chairman of the Fakenham Area Partnership had submitted the
following question:
1. What checks and balances are in place to ensure that the new organisation which
decides and distributes funding is efficient and meets the necessary criteria of giving
funding equally and fairly to voluntary organisations in the North Norfolk area?
The Portfolio Holder said that the eligibility criteria for applications to the Big Society
Fund ensured that funding would be distributed fairly. In addition, the decision-making
process for allocating grants would be politically balanced.
Several questions had been received from Janet Holdom, Coordinator of the Fakenham
Area Partnership:
1. The constant response from NNDC Members is that no funding will be given for
administration costs. What does this include? Surely telephone, broadband, IT
support, stationery, printing, postage and some organisational time are crucial to
almost every project you’re likely to be seeking support for.
The Portfolio Holder explained that core funding was not covered by the Fund.
Administration costs linked to the delivery of projects would be included but general
overheads would not. This was in-line with other grant-giving organisations.
2. Recently, when I was enquiring about the possibility of funding for marketing
software connected with the Fakenham Community Campus project, Norfolk
Community Foundation informed me that they are not accepting any funding
applications from local area partnerships (LAPs). I explained this was not in relation
to core costs but for project equipment and was told that it was not their policy to
fund LAPs for any activity
Mr Tuttle explained that the Norfolk Community Foundation was not a decision-making
body. It distributed funds on behalf of other organisations and projects needed to be in
line with the aspirations of the fund. Each year the NCF received £3m of requests for
£1.5m of funding. It was impossible to support everyone that applied but there was
definitely no bias against anyone or any organisation.
3. I am concerned that there is an inbuilt bias against LAPs within the Norfolk
Community Foundation, specifically with regard to the North Norfolk Community
Fund
Mr Tuttle said that there was no built-in bias against the Local Area Partnerships. The
NCF processed any applications they received and presented them to any eligible
panel. All applications were presented in a standard format and if they didn’t fit the
criteria then they would be signposted to a more suitable source of funding. The
Portfolio Holder added that the LAPs were encouraged to apply to the Big Society Fund
but that core funding was not covered and this applied to everyone.
4. Is the Norfolk Community Foundation the best choice to manage the new Big
Society Fund, with a history of questionable independence and neutrality?
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
3
31 January 2012
The Portfolio Holder said that various options for administration of the Fund had been
considered, including managing it internally. The NCF was able to run the Fund very
efficiently and their knowledge of other funding sources meant that the potential of the
Big Society Fund would be maximised as applicants could be signposted to other
funding sources if they did not meet the criteria or their application was unsuccessful. Mr
Tuttle added that the NCF was an independent organisation and that its aim was to get
money out to the local community. Decision making was not within its remit – it
processed the applications and presented them to the most appropriate funding panel.
The NCF worked closely with several other bodies to ensure that as many sources as
possible were available to those seeking funding.
5. Is a 12% administration charge (a potential £84000 fee) the best value for money?
Mr Tuttle said that the administration charge was 6% which amounted to £27000. This
was comparable to the amount paid by other local authorities.
6. The Norfolk Community Foundation application form is overly bureaucratic and not
very efficient in terms of time response.
Mr Tuttle explained that it was a standard application form and the same template was
used by all 57 community foundations across the country. There were 17 pages in total
including several pages of guidance notes. All the information requested on the form
was there to support the reputation of the donor and their funding. Applications took
approximately 3 weeks to process and could also be submitted online.
7. Regarding actual applications to the Big Society Fund – can a prompt and sensitive
response time be built into the application process? Regular meetings and faster
turnaround sensitive to community groups needs rather than the current funding
panel’s time management.
The Portfolio Holder explained that there were two levels of application. Requests for
over £5000 would be approved by the Cabinet at their monthly meeting. Applications for
less than £5000 would be assessed by a Committee which would meet as regularly as
necessary. The eligibility criteria had been kept to a minimum to ensure the process was
simple.
The Chairman asked whether applications that required Cabinet approval were subject
to a call in by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. The Deputy Chief Executive
explained that requests under £10000 could be dealt with under delegation. Anything
over £10000 could be called in.
8. Regarding qualification criteria – can there be clear guidelines as to what is ruled in
and ruled out so the goal posts can’t be moved whenever it is politically expedient?
The Portfolio Holder reiterated that the criteria were not overly prescriptive so that the
application process was simple and to encourage as many people as possible to apply.
The Committee considering applications would be politically balanced. He added that
any changes to the eligibility criteria would be a decision for Full Council.
The Chairman asked the Committee whether they wished to clarify any of the issues
raised so far:
1. A Member asked where the gap would be filled for projects such as Voyager which
required significant input in terms of ideas for activities. Mr Tuttle said that funding
had been supplied for the Griffon Partnership which ran the Voyager Community
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
4
31 January 2012
2.
3.
4.
5.
Group. The NCF were willing to advise any project on how to fill a funding gap. They
would work with organisations to try and anticipate any future needs and find
suitable organisations that could assist.
A concern was raised that support was lacking at local level for small projects and
they would begin to disappear without the support of the Local Area Partnerships.
The Portfolio Holder said that the Local Area Partnerships would continue to
operate. The Big Society Fund was being set up in recognition of the support
needed for local projects. It was important that the community decided which
projects they would like funding for. He added that capacity building was critical in
ensuring sustainability and this was a vital part of the support structure that was
being proposed.
A Member asked whether the NCF were able to advise an applicant if the amount of
funding requested was too high. Mr Tuttle said that was not the role of the
Foundation, however, they may be aware of cheaper sources or providers for
equipment or facilities and they could advise the panel that a lower amount may be
more appropriate. The final decision would always lie with the panel.
Clarification was sought on the meaning of core funding. The Portfolio Holder
explained that projects would need to cover costs for administering an individual
project but general overheads and ongoing costs for office staff would not be
included in the funding. He said that it was important that the maximum amount of
money reached the front line and that organisations did not become dependent on
funding. It was hoped that the Big Society Fund would encourage more people to
volunteer their services and this was unlikely to happen if people were paid to take
on such roles.
A Member asked whether an organisation could reapply for funding once it had been
refused. The Portfolio Holder said that there was no limit on the number of
applications that could be made and no time limit. In response to a further question
regarding advice on altering applications to maximise the chances of obtaining
funding, Mr Tuttle said that the NCF were willing to do this. They employed 3
dedicated grants officers and they would always try and ensure that applications
were of the highest standard and went to the most appropriate fund. Sometimes
funding would be shared between panels. Voluntary Norfolk and the Norfolk Rural
Community Council (NRCC) would also help with the application process.
The Chairman asked the Committee if there were any specific questions for Mr Tuttle
relating to the Norfolk Community Foundation.
1. A Member asked how many staff were employed by the Foundation and if there
were any volunteers. Mr Tuttle confirmed that there were 5 members of staff and 5
volunteers. They were based in Norwich and had no premises costs. A donor paid
50% of Mr Tuttle’s salary. This meant that only 4-5% was spent on core costs each
year.
2. Clarification was sought regarding the application process and whether the NCF
checked to see if applicants had sought funding elsewhere. Mr Tuttle said that the
NCF was aware that people made duplicate applications to several funds. There
were 12 charitable trusts in Norfolk and they met 4 times a year. Four charities were
invited to each meeting to pitch direct for funding. The NCF recognised that there
were lots of vulnerable organisations and they would even approach them direct if
they became aware that they were struggling and offer support in obtaining funding.
3. A Member asked how easy it was for smaller groups or individuals to apply for
funding. Mr Tuttle said that the NCF supported both registered and unregistered
charities. They were the only organisation in the region to support unregistered
charities.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
5
31 January 2012
The Chairman asked the Committee for comments and questions relating to the
proposed operational framework of the North Norfolk Big Society Fund:
1. A Member was concerned that the profile of the Council should not disappear within
the Community Foundation’s general branding. It should be made clear to potential
applicants that the Big Society Fund was an initiative of North Norfolk District
Council. The Portfolio Holder agreed. He said that it was important that the Council
received credit for the Fund. He explained that the NCF would direct applicants to
the Council and that all information provided would be clearly branded with the
NNDC logo. Once applicants were directed to the Big Society Fund, additional
information would be requested and then explored further in dialogue.
2. It was important that the Council worked closely with the organisation responsible for
capacity building. They should work as a partnership and the terms of the Service
Level Agreement (SLA) should be negotiated rather than predetermined.
3. Links between the Council and parish and town councils were very important and
should be strengthened if the Big Society Fund was to achieve its full potential.
4. The Chairman suggested that a cap of 5% could be placed on administration costs
for each application.
5. There was no upper funding limit for the Big Society Fund but it could be made clear
to applicants that grants for large amounts would be exceptional.
6. Large projects may need funding for longer than the 1 year stated. It could be
acknowledged within the eligibility criteria that funding could be extended but that it
was dependant on the continued receipt of second homes income from the County
Council. The Portfolio Holder said that it was stated within the appendices to the
framework document that 2 years funding could be proposed, with 50% in the
second year coming from other sources.
7. The £5000 trigger for Cabinet to consider applications to the Fund could be too low
and could generate a considerable amount of work for them.
8. There should be regular reports back to the Scrutiny Committee on the progress of
the Big Society Fund.
9. A Member queried the cost of back office support for the Fund. The Portfolio Holder
said that 6% (£27000) would go the Norfolk Community Fund and £50,000 would go
towards community capacity building. In response to a further question regarding
concerns about the Voyager Project in North Walsham, he said that he would look at
their needs in further depth.
10. There was a concern that parish and town councils were not empowered enough to
represent the views of their communities. The Portfolio Holder said that it was
fundamental that more power was driven down to parish and town councils. The Big
Society Fund would encourage this by allowing them to apply for funding for
community projects.
11. It would be helpful if a detailed annual report could be produced providing an
analysis of donations. Nr Ivory explained that the Council would use its own panel to
determine applications and that a detailed report could be provided.
12. The concept of real need could be introduced to the eligibility criteria in addition to
the requirement of community support.
13. The role of Ward Members should be mentioned within the Framework document.
14. The eligibility criteria should be kept to a minimum but there did need to be a ‘driver’.
The Corporate Plan could offer guidance and help provide a framework. It was
suggested that the two Members of the Committee who would be nominated to work
on the Service Level Agreements could also consider the criteria.
15. The examples of projects eligible for funding should be carefully chosen to give real
encouragement to potential applicants.
16. It was important to clarify what the Big Society Fund would cover and when the
capacity building process would start.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
6
31 January 2012
17. Environmental projects appeared to be excluded from applying to the Fund. Perhaps
the eligibility criteria could be worded to indicate that they will be considered if they
are supported by the community and strengthen ties.
18. A Member asked whether grants made by the Big Society Fund would be monitored.
The Portfolio Holder said that they would be and that it was a crucial part of the
process.
19. There was a concern that there would be a disproportionate number of applications
to the Fund from the larger towns and that smaller towns and villages could struggle
to come up with ideas. The Portfolio Holder agreed that there was the potential for
too many applications but it was hoped that town councils would take the lead in
prioritising the needs of the local community. Large scale projects would be dealt
with differently as they required a lot of input from the Council and would be
resourced internally.
20. A Member asked whether the income from second homes was likely to stay at the
same level. The Portfolio Holder said that it had declined noticeably recently. It
wasn’t clear whether this was due to holiday homes switching to business rates or
whether they had been sold. The Deputy Chief Executive added that the proposal to
remove the 10% discount on second homes would mean that the income stream
would be lost as there would be no way of identifying which properties were in this
category. In response to a further question regarding the role of the County Strategic
Partnership, The Portfolio Holder said that they had previously administered the
sustainable community strategies.
21. The possibility of an application coming forward for funding late in the financial year
when available funds could be low was raised. The Portfolio Holder explained that
although there was a finite pot of money there was a reserve fund which could be
drawn on if the grants committee wished to fund a specific project. He added that
the Norfolk Community Foundation were able to signpost applicants to other
available sources of funding.
22. There was a possibility that some funding could be wasted if further follow-on
funding was not found for some projects. They may need assistance to start looking
for additional funding during the early stages of the project.
23. The general outline for the service level agreements (SLA’s) was good. They should
not be too prescriptive and need to be outcome-based. NNDC should work with the
chosen provider as a partner and negotiate the terms rather than pre-determining
them.
The Chairman proposed two additional recommendations to the Committee:
1. That the Group developing the formal service level agreements would also consider
the eligibility criteria for the community grant funding scheme.
2. That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee would receive six monthly reports on the
operation of the Big Society Fund
RESOLVED
a) To recommend the proposed structure of the Big Society Fund to Cabinet
b) To nominate two Members of the Committee, Mr G Williams and Mr N Smith to work
with the Leader of the Council and the Cabinet Portfolio Member in developing a
formal service level agreement based upon the draft outcomes incorporate within
the appendices
c) That the Members listed above would also consider the eligibility criteria for the
community grant funding scheme.
d) That their conclusions on the above would be reported to Full Council on 22
February 2012.
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
7
31 January 2012
e) To refer comments and observations to Cabinet for consideration on 6 February
2012 prior to submission of the recommended operational framework to Council
f) That the Overview and Scrutiny Committee should receive six monthly reports on
the operation of the Big Society Fund
The meeting concluded at 12.07 pm
_________________________
Chairman
Overview and Scrutiny Committee
8
31 January 2012