Agenda item

The Community Service Manager explained that it had initially been anticipated that this agenda item would be dealt with in exempt session but only small elements of the report needed removing for it to be able to remain in open session.  They had discussed specific conversations with particular organisations.

The paper set out new funding proposals.  There was an open fund which local voluntary organisations could bid for.

There were four priorities:

·         Improving people’s health and wellbeing

·         Enabling access to information, advice and guidance

·         Reducing social isolation and loneliness

·         Building stronger, connected communities

The Chairman expressed his gratitude to those who had worked on this.

The committee noted that the scoping report had changed due to Covid and the Executive had decided to have an Executive Working Group.

There was concern from the committee that funding allocations would be reviewed every year when there was the expectation that organisations would be funded for three years.  The Community Service Manager explained that the budget needed to be agreed every year.  The committee still felt that the statement in the document that the council could withdraw funding was very blunt and they wanted to see an additional sentence stating that the council would seek to work with the organisations.  It was explained that Service Level Agreements had the same caveats in case the council had to change its funding priorities.

It was felt important to ensure that all groups had a fair chance of getting funding as they had different priorities, e.g. some focussed on the young.

Some of the demographic statistics were questioned by the committee, including the statement that there was a lot of loneliness in Farnham Castle ward.  The Corporate Policy Manager stated that it was a large ward which included a lot of rural areas as well as Castle Street in Farnham town centre.

It was stated that there was a lot of juxtaposition in Waverley between areas of low deprivation and those which were comparatively more deprived. 

It was felt that there needed to be more support for people in the early stages of dementia

RESOLVED

·         That Councillor Jenny Else be nominated as a representative to sit on the assessment panel and review applications

·         The committee recommends that the Executive does not implement the proposal to ring fence funds for youth provision referred to in paragraph 4.5 of the covering report.  The committee members felt it would be premature for this decision to be taken prior to applications being received.  The committee members would prefer instead to see the principle also outlined in paragraph 4.5 that “the process should not separate population types” applied consistently.  A paragraph would be added stating that the council sought to support minorities and other vulnerable groups

·      In addition to the recommendations above the Community Wellbeing Overview and Scrutiny Committee ask the Executive to note the following comments:

      I.        That the Committee supports the broad principles and design of the proposed new funding arrangements for the voluntary section. They thanked officers for the substantial work which had gone into producing them.

    II.        Most, but not all, committee members felt that paragraph 6.3 of the covering report gives an unduly harsh impression of how the Council would deal with concerns about whether an organisation is complying with its funding requirements. They felt it would be valuable to make clear that the Council would take constructive steps to address any unmet requirements before withdrawing funding.

   III.        The Committee felt that the discussion of population data for Waverley would be strengthened by also considering:

a) the diversity of the Borough in terms of ethnicity, religion and refugee status; and

b) the distinction between people in different stages of dementia, as early stage dementia places a disproportionate burden on community organisations relative to latter stages, when in general statutory health and social care agencies take on a larger role.

  IV.        The committee notes that whilst the Community Meals service no longer receives Council funding, in many cases their ability to provide meals is dependent on access to kitchens in buildings run by organisations which do. These synergies should be accounted for in the assessments of applications. In addition, contingencies should be made for the eventuality that the service can no longer use these kitchens.