Interactive webcast player

Grants Determination (Cabinet) Sub-Committee
Wednesday, 1st July 2026 at 5:30pm

 

Welcome to our Webcast Player.

The webcast should start automatically for you. 

Webcast cameras are not operated by camerapersons; they are automated and linked to speaker microphone units. The aim is to provide viewers with a reasonable visual and audio record of proceedings of meetings held in public.

Note: If your webcast link appears not to be working, please return to the Webcast Home Page and try again, or use the help email address to contact us.

 

 

 

 

 

 

An agenda has not been published for this meeting.

Good evening everyone.
Welcome to the grants subcommittee.
My name is Mayim Talukda.
I'll be chairing the meeting.
Before I start, can we quickly have an introduction, starting from members and then we'll go to officers.
And then we'll go on to the rest of the agenda.
So should we start from you please?
integrity.
Good afternoon, Councillor Saeed Ahmed.
Councillor Kabbalah Ahmed, no DPA's.
Jonathan from New.
I am Jonathan Fox from Principal Life Contracts, here to advise the panel.
No DPA's, Chair.
Simi Aspin, Democratic Services.
Ed Farrelly, Head of School Buildings and Development.
Hello, I'm Robert May, Volunteering Culture Sector Grants Lead.
Thank you. Welcome once again.
Any apologies to me?
No chair, no apologies for absence.
We need to elect a vice chair.
Any nominations, members?
I nominate Councillor Saeed Ahmed.
Any other nominations?
Any questions?
I nominate Councillor Kabir Ahmed.
I'll second Councillor Saeed Ahmed.
Is that agreed?
Agreed.
Thank you.
Any DPI's?
If you have any, just declare it.
No?
Okay, that's fine.
No DPI's.
Any DPI's from officers?
No? Brilliant. So, that's done. Now we move on to unrestricted minutes.
Do we have any?
Pages 9 to 14.
Pages 9 to 14. Can we agree them as a true record?
Agreed.
Yep. Thank you.
Okay, now we move on to the reports.
So, first one is 5 .1.
Simi, are you going to be presenting the report?
Thank you.
Yes, sir. Thank you, chair.
This is item 5 .1, which is the Grants Determination Subcommittee terms of reference report.
This is the annual report which comes to committee,
and it asks members to note and agree its terms of reference, quorum, membership and meeting dates
for the municipal year 2026 to 2027.
Thank you, chair.
Thank you. Well, it's a standard terms of reference. I hope everyone read it.
Can we? Yeah. Council Ahmed.
Sorry, Chair. I just want to, I don't know how we stand governance wise, but I expect the Director to be at a committee meeting,
because I think it's unfair when we have service heads and junior officers present.
Officer member protocol, we have a lot of training done around that.
And for us to scrutinise officers who are outside of that protocol within committee meetings, I feel, is unfair.
And at least a director or a corporate director should be present at committee meetings.
Sure, thank you. Chair noted.
Thank you. I second that.
I think if we can pass on the message at the next meeting,
we would like a senior officer to present as well.
Thank you. Thank you for that.
OK, so we agree on that, yeah?
OK, 5 .2 is Robert Mee, you're here.
So, option 4 is Community Grant Programme.
Do you want to go through it?
Yes, thank you, Chair.
So this report is setting out some options for the committee to make a decision on,
regarding the new grants programme that's being developed.
So just a bit of background, the current Mayor's Community Grants Programme comes to end in March 2027.
and also the small grants programme of the emergency fund also comes to an end then.
So in terms of developing a new programme which we've taken initial steps on,
what we try and do is not to have a gap in provision.
This paper has put in an option for a six month extension to give more time to put a new programme in place
so it can be ready to go directly after the current programme.
Or the other option is to work through with an accelerated timeline to aim to get the new programme ready to be delivering in April 2027.
Those are the two options.
Depending on what option the committee goes with,
then if there is an extension, then we will need an approval for extension,
if not, then we are going with the option to an accelerated timeline.
There are advantages and disadvantages for either option.
So, with an extension, it reduces the risk that the new programme won't be ready and gives more time.
Disadvantage, of course, is that VCS organisations that are not currently funded will have to wait even longer
before they can apply for the new programme.
And if we go for the accelerated delivery or development and implementation of the new programme,
The risk is that we don't get it ready in time
and then we are facing the potential of a gap in provision
whether the new programme isn't ready to deliver from April.
But if we do manage to do it,
and obviously we have put this option in with a timeline to do that,
then it will allow the VCS organisations,
current ones and new ones to apply for the new programme in a timely manner.
Before I go on to members, pretty much you have given us two options.
One is to extend it and the second one is implement the new programme as we discussed.
If we extend it, what's the amount we're talking about?
In terms of, is it 1 .2 million?
Yeah, for six months.
So we would be using under spends that are there at the moment,
based on not all the funding, particularly for the small grants,
has been used and the projections for the up to March
would indicate an under spend that could be used for the six month extension.
So that's how that would be funded.
If we don't have the extension then that under spend could be included
as part of the funding for the actual programme starting in April.
And if we do go with the option two, I know you've read the reasons and everything, but I just want to understand, realistically it's going to be tight, but it's possible to deliver.
It can be done, but the risk is high.
Basically, we're dealing with, we don't know all the variables.
For example, if we get a massive amount of applications in,
then the time allotted for the assessments might not be sufficient.
we are looking at whether there are external people who can either do the assessments or help do the assessments.
So that can help with that.
We would have to look at the existing work,
because we'd have to be pulling people from the current day to day job to work on the implementation.
So all these things can be done, but it's when you get to how many applications are we doing.
Is there a delay in the approval process or in terms of the mobilisation,
getting the funding agreements in place so that we can make that first payment and the groups can start delivering.
Is there a delay in that?
Where technically they could,
if we got the approval before April,
technically they could deliver,
but some groups might be saying,
well I need the funding agreement first,
I need that first payment first,
and so although there wouldn't technically be a gap
in the provision of the programme,
there could be a delayed start for some projects.
So that is the risk.
I suppose the other thing as well is if we are getting towards the end of March
and we are attempting to get the programme in place, if there are delays,
for whatever reason, would there be time to then have another decision to extend
for a few months or whatever the situation is presenting us with.
So it's full of variables and we just weighing the risks
and what's the best approach.
Thank you.
Right, we'll go on to members. Any questions?
Yes, Councillor.
So, again, I want to reiterate that there's no directors here and I don't want any officers
to feel sort of intimidated or undermined, but I find it really difficult to just come
in here and say, give an extension, okay, and there'll be, otherwise there's risks of
service failure.
We should have contingencies in place, the department should have been working on that
and a director should be responsible for that.
and I'm really uncomfortable with giving extensions because we might not get our work done in time if there's a level of applications.
You know, we can extend and extend and extend, we don't know volumes, so I don't really find that as a justifiable reason
because we might get a higher workload and unable to process stuff so we should continue.
At the end of the day we're talking about public money here, we're talking over a million pounds here of public money.
We're talking about a unilateral process of making decisions to extend without going through a filtering process.
And I'm not comfortable with that to be honest.
And normally through other forums such as CABINA and MAB and so on and so forth,
what this administration has done again and again has made sure that we hold directors to account
so that we don't have to extend contracts without an open transparent process.
And extensions and contracts for me aren't transparent processes, they're service failures,
where we haven't prepared stuff in time to move on to the next stage.
So for that reason, I think the department and our...
it should be taken to the directors in charge,
in order to make sure that they've got stuff in place,
irrelevant of the volume of applications that come into process in time,
in order to deliver on time as well.
So for that purpose, I'm not really supportive of an extension.
Thank you. Any other members?
Yes, Councillor Ahta.
Thank you, Chair.
So I wouldn't want to repeat what Councillor Kibbutz said,
But I think given the kind of the track record and how we have delivered the most grant programme,
I would want to have more, give space for new people to come in, new groups of people who haven't been funding in the past.
And I think having an extension kind of doesn't give the opportunity for new people to come in.
And there are so many great groups out there who have really, really showed good work and
it would be good to give them that opportunity.
And I think just giving an extension, like I agree with Councillor Kebede, it's just
a failure.
We need to really get the opportunity for new people to come in and get involved.
And that's how we can actually review and monitor.
And we should be having those things already in place, reviewing what's working, what groups
have previously funded and I really think that we should be giving people more chance.
Thank you, Gé. Thank you, Robert, for the presentation.
Just two quick things from me. I'm of the same opinion of option 2, going for option 2.
But I wanted to ask, what were the main reasons or justifications for asking for the extension?
Because I understand the programme is for three years, so we would have known well in advance
that we'd have to prepare for that eventuality.
So I know there's reference to a deep dive review, and in option two talks about how
that would require more officer capacity, all of that stuff.
But aside from a deep dive review that was only announced maybe quite recently,
what other things that you think has maybe just sprung up that has made you want to now extend as opposed to do it in time?
I really want to understand what the sort of challenges, if you want to call it that.
And then the second point is around the actual cost of nearly 2 million pounds, 1 .7 million pounds.
I think for me, yes it may be an underspend but it's an opportunity for us.
Not just in this area, but in other parts of the Council when we have cost pressures.
So for me to use this here for an extension would be very short sighted in my opinion.
So yeah, I thought we would just make those two points.
Thank you.
Councillor Ayd?
Thank you, Chair.
I think the paper is quite laid out quite simply.
What is clear to me, though, option 2 is possible.
because the timeline is laid out, it does say that there is risk associated and I think
we have risk in every option that we go with, nothing comes risk free.
I think it's more of a sort of maybe offline discussion to see what the risk is and the
really way up if that is of a significant factor and how we can overcome that because
members are more comfortable option to share.
Thank you. Anyone else?
Okay. I think...
Do you want me to answer or respond to some of these points?
Yeah. Just on the extension,
just a reason for it.
Sorry, you mentioned the deep dive.
But another reason is the election.
If we had done the development or the consultation of what the priorities are before the election,
and then we didn't know the outcome of the election, and that could all have been changed.
Without doing that consultation and getting feedback from the sector,
we couldn't just after the election say,
and say, we're launching it, put the applications in.
So we're doing the consultation over the next few months,
up to September, and that's the same on either of the options.
So that's just sort of an unfortunate timing issue,
and if we'd done everything about the new programme before the election,
would have been too early and committed another three years.
So that was a factor.
In terms of the risk,
so there's our risk in terms of the risk of not being able to do this.
The other side of it is from the voluntary community sector organisations.
So we've got the current funded ones where a lot of their staff are on fixed term contracts,
it's tied to the funding and they are looking for certainty.
Now going without an extension, it still gives them certainty,
because we are saying the project finishes at the end of March,
which they knew beforehand.
But with the accelerated timetable,
we won't be getting the approval till February, March,
depending on how quickly we can get.
So there's that uncertainty for the existing groups.
I've not been able to give them...
Yes, we can give them notice that the project is coming to an end,
but we can't give them notice that they've been successful
in the new application.
So that's that side. But as has been mentioned, that's just looking at the currently funded.
And we've got all the groups who aren't funded and have had over three years of not being able to access the main grants programme.
And so there is an argument for doing this as soon as possible so we can open it up to all the groups.
So, if the committee is going with no extension,
we'll try and deliver this and obviously keep updating the committee.
The next week is in October, we'll be bringing the outcome of the consultation
and the proposals for the programme and we'll work to get it done.
Thank you for that Robert.
I think, obviously you've taken the comments from members and I think I really can't agree on either of the options.
I think we need to discuss it with the Mayor and the Chief Executive and then we have to come to a decision.
So at the moment I think we need to hold on to it, subject to a discussion with the CEO and the Mayor
and then we can come to a conclusion.
In terms of timeline and process,
anything you want to add Jonathan?
There isn't any legal issue on that.
So we need to discuss it with the CO and the mayor
and then come to a decision.
So you can follow it up, if you came to a decision you can follow it up with an IMD.
OK, yep.
IMD or cabinet, whenever there is a cabinet we can fit in with that.
Is that okay?
Deferring the decision.
Is that agreed?
Yes.
Thank you.
5 .3, MERS Community Grants Programme, Performance.
Robert, you are there, so if you want to just go through it, please.
This is our regular Mass Committeigrams Programme performance report.
We do it each quarter.
The timing can vary in terms of when the committee is sitting.
This quarter is actually October to December.
I'll be able to update the AMBLR project with a bit more information
as we got some generator march information in.
But just to summarise this in terms of the red and amber projects.
The red projects are where there is an extremely high risk of not delivering.
And that is borne out by these two red projects which are closed
because of account three closing, which we did give a verbal update
to the last meeting that account three was closing
and this report is just confirming it and we've got the project closure reports.
Now it was an orderly transition, there's no outstanding ordered closure,
there's no outstanding payments or any money back
and they delivered up to the end of December.
And then we have the AMBA projects where there is a bit of risk in terms of will they deliver.
So if we just go through these we've got five AMBA projects.
So we've got Wapping Youth Services, the Fit for Life, the Bona Sous Sports project.
So that is amber, but managed to put a bid in the report as well saying that
it's expected that the project will move to green.
And we have the January tomorrow return that has been reviewed
and we expect it to be green next time.
The care centre to Hamlet.
Now this one looks as though it will continue to be amber
and we will have to potentially bring a report to the next committee meeting.
Because the issue here is that they are sort of lifetime targeted beneficiaries.
So if they are not able to meet their lifetime target,
then that will need a sort of decision whether we can agree
a new lifetime target, what's the impact of not meeting these targets.
So this is looking to continue to be amber and more options and more explanation at the next meeting.
And the next one, Positive East.
So we have got the challenge of March return in,
this looks to go back to green.
So there was some data missing that has now been provided
and the officers continue to support their projects
when there is issues to get them back on track.
We've also got Towneletts Parent Centre.
So this was an issue with actual data being provided for the October to December.
That data has come through in the March return or before that,
and then March return, it's shown that the numbers are down, so potentially that will continue to be amber.
We'll give a further update and continue to support. Although we report quarterly, we don't stop after each quarter.
We'll continue working with the groups to get back on track.
The fifth one, Shadwell Trust, Self -Defence Classes and Creative Arts.
Now, Sadwell Trust did have an issue with another project as well,
with the Tarling Centre closure, so that was a while ago,
but that put a difficulty of delivering without the access to the Tarling Centre,
which is now back open.
In the October -December return,
they didn't provide all the data and the narrative,
but we have actually managed to get that now.
They have shown improvement in the March quarter that has come in.
The issue is whether they can catch up on their lifetime target.
So that might get back to green or it might be amber, but we still need to do a bit more work with them for the next report.
So they are the red and amber ones, but overall the programme is delivering.
We have got some key outcomes for the quarter in terms of social welfare advice.
We've got over 3 ,000 clients accessing social welfare advice and income from benefits.
There's 710 ,000 debt write -offs that's been done through that social welfare advice project.
We've got 49 people into employment in October to December.
We've got 53 residents with improved health outcomes.
They're from the scene 3, the sports activity.
So in the report there are overall the programme is looking good.
And then the individual projects, there is more detail in the appendix.
So if anyone has any questions on those, I might be able to answer.
Or I might have to take it away and come back.
Thank you. I mean it's a noting item, but before I go on to members.
I mean the amber and the reds, are they continuous?
Or are they just...
The reds are closed now, so those projects are closed.
And then I think three of these amber ones we are looking to go back to green.
So...
So three will be go, hopefully they will be green.
Yeah, and then two...
And the reds?
The other two might still be amber, so we might have to bring a report
for options of agreeing a revised lifetime target
or change to the project.
If anyone's continuously red, then we really need to do what we need to do.
Because it's end of the day, we need to be very cautious about it.
If they are continuously red, then obviously there is something wrong with it.
So we need to come to an end and not waste any further taxpayers' money.
Members?
Thank you, Chair.
I just wanted to ask which two are you concerned that would stay red?
The two that would be amber?
Yes.
It's a carer centre to Hamlets and to our Hamlets Parent Centre.
So the issue with carer centres is not getting as many people into the project as they plan to.
and we've been supporting them in terms of the increased publicity
and trying to attract more people.
On some projects the numbers fluctuate,
but this one is looking like they're going to struggle
with just under a year left to actually meet those priorities.
They are struggling, we need to support them as much as we can,
If it's continuous AMBA, then we really need to look at it.
Whereas there's no question about it.
If we do confirm AMBA again in March's return,
which we're looking through now, we can report together,
then the next report will have options for the committee to make a decision.
They might say, well, you might say this project,
we can't continue supporting it at these levels or the level of funding
or if there are actions that can be taken.
We don't just keep, if it's continuously amber and if it's continually red,
quarter after quarter, then we don't just let that happen.
We would bring a paper saying this has been amber for three quarters
and we need a decision because it's not.
Thank you. Also, we did request it previously.
If you can send us invitations, we would like to go and visit the organisation,
but without informing them. Spot visits. Spot cheques or visits.
Yes, so we are actually doing unannounced visits in this financial year, so from April.
If you can communicate to the members and whoever is available, we'll go along.
Thank you. Can we knock the item?
Yes? Sure?
Okay, thank you.
5 .4. VCS funding awarded under the delegated authority.
It's you again, Rob.
I just want to go through just a summary, please. Thank you.
This is a standard report that we bring to every committee with decisions taken on the
delegated authority.
We've got a couple of emergency funding projects, community benefit grant reduction, Wayne is
I just have a couple of minutes to explain that.
And the small grants awards.
But, I do want to alert the committee,
it is in the report, but I want to highlight it,
that there was an error, officer error, including myself,
I take responsibility for this, on one of the grant awards.
So I just want to go through that.
So one of the criteria is that an applicant can't have more than one CRANTA award
in the same theme in the same year.
So that's one of our criteria.
If they put in an application in round three and they've already had some funding
from round two and it's the same theme, then it's ineligible
and so it doesn't even get assessed.
Now there can be some confusion on the parts of the applicants.
This is part of what we tell them,
but because we are dealing with financial years,
somebody is putting an application in 2025,
and the next time they are putting it in is in 2026,
but it is early 2026 and it is actually part of the financial year.
And we normally spot them and say, I am sorry it is ineligible,
but one was missed. This was the WISH Foundation.
They applied and were successful for the community events
in round one, in 25 -26.
And they applied again in round three.
And we missed it on our cheques.
Which is disappointing.
So not only did we miss it on our standard cheque we do in the assessment stage,
but it continued on, it was recommended, it was approved,
a funding agreement was signed by both parties,
the first payment was made and they are delivering the project.
And it was only a few weeks ago that we supported my attention,
and we've already funded this one.
And I went back to our cheques and yep, it was there.
Not a technical issue, we just missed it.
Didn't pick it up from one spreadsheet when putting together another spreadsheet.
So I want the committee to know about that.
And as soon as we discovered this mistake,
went to the head of service who took it to the director of finance who is the officer
with delegated authority for making these decisions and the director of finance agreed
to honour the award on this occasion as it was our mistake.
We sent them a letter of notification, we sent them a funding agreement, we signed the
funding agreement.
Sorry Robert, I don't think we need to go into that much detail within the wider committee.
Can I suggest that you get the director to give a report to us as the committee,
in terms of the governance and decision making process around that,
but going into the specific nature of each of the stages,
I don't think it's appropriate for this committee at this stage, if that's alright, yeah?
So in terms of, obviously it's very disappointing, the errors you're talking about, human error,
but I'm trying to find, is it reflected in the report? Because I can't find it.
Yes, it's actually...
It's the one I wanted to highlight.
It's actually...
It's actually 3 .3g.
Sorry, 3 point?
I'll just show that to you now.
It's page 240.
Page 240, 3 point?
So what we are doing to make sure that it is not repeated?
So we will obviously continue the cheque and be more thorough at the initial stage as we have been doing.
but what we're going to do is do another cheque after the assessment stage
as the recommendations are put together.
So I went back to double cheque every previous year and round
and this was an isolated mistake,
but that sort of cheque we did,
which involved extracting the data and comparisons,
I'm going to provide that to the head of service
where we send the report with the recommendations,
we'll send this cheque.
It will only come into force in round two,
because the round that's just closed,
we start again with a new financial year.
But when we get to round two,
we'll need to make sure that we don't miss anyone
who's applied in round two,
but they've already had funding in round one.
And part of that will be providing that evidence
along with the report,
So the head of service, when he's sending it to the director for approval, he could say,
we've acknowledged that there was an error before, we've taken steps to have multiple cheques,
and here's the evidence of the cheque and the outcome of the cheque.
Can we make sure it's reflected in the minutes as well, please?
It was an office error and we need to make sure that it doesn't happen again,
and everything that Robert said.
Members, anything you want to add?
Okay, can we note the item?
Subject to...
On this report,
waiting to have a couple of minutes
on the community benefit rent reduction.
Yeah, please.
So this is the one area of this report
that's not in our team.
we're giving grants out and this is classified as a grant,
but it's not money going out.
So, Wayne leads on that and I just thought it would be useful
just to clarify.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Welcome, Wayne.
If you want to just quickly summarise your comments.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I'm Wayne Trevor, one of the strategy and policy officers.
This refers to item 3 .2 in the gender item, which is about community benefit rent reduction,
which as Robert said is a non -cash grant given to qualifying VCS organisations to reduce
the rent they pay in return for community benefits that are agreed as part of the proposal.
Just to update, in the last period, the community benefit rent reduction panel has agreed two
awards, one to the Boundary Estate Community Laundrette and one to the Highways Clubs and
you can see on the documentation the values of those. In most instances they last for
five years, which is the authority that the panel have, but some of you might remember
that the Highways Clubs also went to cabinet earlier on this year which agreed an exceptional
15 year grant and so the panel continues to monitor those on an annual basis and if there
Any questions?
I'm happy to take those now.
Any questions, members?
I mean, they're delivering well, there's no issues, there's no risk, nothing, everything's
fine.
There's no human error or anything?
No human error, they've only just been agreed, so we're mobilising those now and we report
them on an annual basis.
No cheques are being made?
As part of the monitoring.
All the monitoring, evaluation, everything's...
Correct, that happens on an annual basis, yeah.
and we report onto that subcommittee.
Thank you.
Brilliant.
Can we note the item?
I agree.
Thank you very much.
Okay, let's move on to 5 .5.
Mayors Small Grants Programme, annual report,
and round one and 2024 round 25, round one and two.
Robert again.
Thank you, Chair.
This report is a new report for the committee.
This is similar to the Mayor's Community Grants Programme performance report.
This is for the small grants rounds.
What we've brought to the committee previously is the small grants awards
done in the Delegate's Authority.
This is reporting back on what's actually been done.
This is covering the first three rounds, so going back to December 2023, when the very first round was launched.
Sorry Robert, if you want to just focus on red and amber.
Please, yeah.
So, we've used the rank rating, so green is they've delivered everything, maybe a bit of less money,
you know, a few pounds under spent, so we've got the actual amount spent, but otherwise they've delivered.
The red, amber is where the monitoring forms have come in,
but the project is not yet closed, and there might be further actions.
But in general we are happy that they have delivered,
and it is just closing it off.
And then the red ones.
So these are ones that have not delivered,
or did not accept the offer of the grant,
or we have withdrawn the grant, because they haven't delivered,
or the monitoring form has not come in to say that they have delivered.
Of these 12 red projects,
we haven't paid them, they have either withdrawn or we've withdrawn,
so that's just information.
But there are seven ones where we make the first payment,
We make 70 % in advance when signing the funding agreement
and any pre -award conditions have been met.
Then what happens is when the organisation has completed their project,
they send in the return including all the total spend
and we pay the 30%.
These seven, we made the first payment, but we haven't had the monitoring return.
I can give an update, because this doesn't stop when the report was put together,
although it's ongoing, so we've got whooping issues
that have not submitted the form,
and what we're proposing is we say, look, we've got till the end of July
to confirm that the project has actually been taken
and give us the information and we make the payment.
Otherwise, it's a breach of the funding agreement,
not submitting the monitoring form,
and we really need the funding to come back.
So, in terms of the timing,
the groups have got about 12 months to deliver the project.
So, it's not necessarily instant.
But, grant 1 -24 -25 was awarded in December 24, so really it should be completed December 25.
There might be special circumstances, there might be issues with the organisation,
we might need to work with them, but we are in July now, so these all should be completed.
The ones I'm really concerned are the ones who are not responding.
There are some that haven't submitted the monitoring and so on, but at least they're communicating.
But the ones who are not communicating at all, I think we really need to take a decision on that.
or US officers, I think.
But out of the reds, which ones do you reckon, at least, there will be AMBA by next?
Or they're going to be continuous?
If you just want to summarise all that.
I can do one better than AMBA.
I mentioned about whopping youth services, where we're going to send a final ultimatum, as it were.
But Youth Fire Community Hub Limited, since the report was put together
and since the pre -engender meeting even,
the monitoring form has now come in and been reviewed
and it looks like they're launching the issues apart from the delay.
So I would say that would move to green, get the payment done.
This is Youth Thrive, did you say?
Yeah.
So that's green?
Yeah.
OK.
And then the others, they're all still red, but I've got an update against town,
this is a patient booster, we're going to give a final reminder.
Some of them, they even haven't started their project, for example, Eastern Community School.
Yeah, I'll get to that one, because that is slightly different to the others,
because the others where we haven't got the one form,
we don't know for certain that they've delivered or not.
And the ones we haven't made payment at all,
I think these are pretty much simple, isn't it?
Yeah, if we've not made the payment then that's fine.
What's the process on this one, Eastern Committee,
the ones that we've made payment but they're not delivering?
We finally got in touch with them, which was very difficult.
We weren't the only department in the council who was chasing after East End Community School to get in touch on other matters.
We finally got in touch with them and they've basically said that their organisation is having difficulty and they're looking for support from the council.
But what they have said is that they haven't delivered these two projects.
So there was another one that we ended up not making the first payment because we were
asking for more information and they couldn't come back and then we just sort of left it.
So unfortunately we didn't do the same with this.
There was communication, they did sign up for an agreement, we made the payment and
then it's been a struggle to contact them or get a response.
But they have come back, they have now been speaking to the community language team.
They contacted the mayor's office asking for assistance.
This is information I just got today, just before the meeting.
So we were looking to meet with them anyway,
because on the one hand, yes, we would want the money back if they have not delivered.
But on the other hand, we want to support local organisations and see how can we help them.
We can only do as much as we can, but if there is no communication, there is no response.
I think we need to do whatever we need to do, legally, to get the money back.
Yes, we are aiming for July, either the money is coming back or we have finally resolved it.
Thank you. Anything you want to add?
If an organisation is not returning the reviews and so on and so forth, the monitoring,
are we going to make another application? How do we treat that application?
Just a quick little answer.
Well, we are looking to tighten it up, basically.
Because it has not been an automatic...
It is a consideration, we have looked at it.
But I am not saying that all these...
For example, Wapping Youth Services,
we fund them for the Man's Community Branch Programme.
We do fund some of these.
We are looking to tie it up going forward.
It's always been if they were applying in the next year
to continue delivering certain activity.
We would say, well, we need to finish the activity
for the last year.
So we have been doing that.
But in a sort of a...
Because there's different themes,
you can apply for one theme that's got one theme lead
looking at that and then they apply for another theme.
So we're trying to look at the programme as a whole a bit more
and say, well, you've not submitted the return,
it's coming up to a year, it needs to come in before we can
proceed with another theme or another round.
So in a nutshell, anyone that is red or not cooperating,
they shouldn't be entitled.
I'm not the theme, I'm not talking about the theme,
I'm talking about the organisation. If an organisation is red constantly,
and we've given them payment, and what Councillor Ahmed is saying,
if they apply for a further grant, in our view,
they should not be considered because they're red.
Sorry, before you come in, I think that might be something
that has to be developed policy level -wide.
So, Sumit, if you can note that down for the director to review.
Okay, a suggestion from me is that if an organisation repeatedly isn't submitting responses, because
as a council, our officers, you have to take time out to constantly revisit that organisation.
That's not money that the organisation is paying for.
That's council's taxpayers' money being wasted in repeatedly chasing them for money that
they've received and reports they've agreed to submit as part of that money.
Then they make another application and we give them more money and now we're chasing
up double because they're not receiving.
So that I think that needs to go back to the policy bit, okay, and the director needs to
review that.
I won't leave that with you because it's not really fair, but it needs to have a policy
level decision.
Thank you.
Noted.
Can we note the paper?
No.
Thank you.
Thank you, Bob.
OK, 5 .6 Ed, welcome.
I can see you've changed my name.
Yeah, I've changed your name, correct.
I was asked to.
Anyway, over to you.
Thank you very much.
The council has approved special educational schemes in its capital programme.
This capital investment funded from a DFE grant is focused on enhancing existing inclusion,
provision and create new specialist inclusion spaces
whilst also improving accessibility across the whole
school escape in Tower Anitz. This programme has generated strong engagement with over
75 bids received.
We've so far approved 65 which is benefiting 30 schools
across the borough. Whilst the funding is capital in nature
its primary purpose is to improve outcomes for pupils
rather than simply to enhance physical assets. Investment decisions
must therefore demonstrate a clear link between capital works
and improved educational access, inclusion and attainment.
Appendix 1 lists the programme and shows what schools have bid for
and we've got a recommendation to the committee
to authorise the Corporate Director of Children's Services
to issue a grant paid in arrears to the Outline Trusts
for the costs of delivering the special educational needs projects
that's listed.
Happy to take any questions or feedback.
Thank you. I just want to quickly summarise for us.
We just want to understand the governance process.
They've all been it. What's the governance process?
They've been. Then we've produced a panel who are looking through.
We've got expertise from special educational needs.
We've got advisory teachers and members from my own service.
We evaluate the bids, we go to the schools, visit, we speak through what it is they're asking for
and then once the panel are happy with that bid, we then move that through to the next stage.
We request quotes, quotations and business plans for what exactly they're trying to put in.
Once those are approved, depending on the model of delivery, if it's a low value, it's a self -delivery,
if it's a larger value, we will deliver on behalf of the schools.
for the self delivery aspects we will then request invoices and go and inspect the work to make sure it's been completed
and that everything as it should be at which point we'll reimburse.
OK members, over to you for any questions.
So I just want to understand, every single school on this list is an academy?
Exactly that.
Is that one of the qualifications, that it has to be an academy?
No.
I can't understand why local authority schools...
Are every single local authority school up to scratch in said provisions already?
Absolutely not. So essentially what's happened is we've had over 30 schools bid.
The 23 schools that have bid separately don't require to go through this process
because they're not academy trusts.
It's just the academy trusts that have to go through this process because it's a grants determination.
We're also, yeah absolutely, it's less about the school estate and more about ensuring
that we've got good facilities for the pupils and that we're helping the most vulnerable
members of the community.
It would be good to understand also as a noting item within the report that marrying it up,
because it looks quite one -sided within the report, because we're only seeing academies
here, because it's good work that's been done by your team, if we could have some sort of
context within that in terms of how many other schools, including local authority schools
that we've delivered services for and I would say it would be good for us to celebrate that
within acknowledgement and writing it in and understand the total amount that's gone in
from the wider budget within the report.
At the MEAS request we've produced a briefing paper which contains all of that information
plus the full programme. I'll be happy to share that with the whole committee. In terms
of comms, we've already started some articles that will be going out. Once schemes start
becoming delivered, we'll look to utilise some of the social media channels just to
ensure that we're making that available and also the Mayor's going to be writing to all
schools to update them on what they've been selected for in terms of an award. So it's
a holistic approach, ensuring that we're all aware of what's happening. But I'll be happy
to share that separately with the committee, no problem at all.
There is a COM strategy you are working on, as you said.
So in terms of we agree with this today, the recommendation, and what's the next process?
The next process will be that we will tell the academy trust that they continue with the programme.
Once they finish the work, we will reimburse them once we receive invoices and notification that the works are complete, plus inspections to ensure that it has the right standard.
Can we request a letter of the
already been approved at cabinet. This report seeks to provide the Mulberry Trust with its
allocated ICT grant in form of that grant to support the timely delivery of the new
school project. The grant will be paid in four instalments as the school grows in its
accommodation from 2026 to 2029. This funding already falls within the envelope from the
basic needs that has already been agreed to by the Mayor last year in order to complete
the school. So recommendation.
There won't be any other slip ups or liquidation?
We're working very diligently to ensure there are no further issues.
Is everything in place to avoid all this in case?
As I say we've got lots of risk mitigations in place to ensure there's no repeat.
Of course with construction there is always some risk,
but as I say we've got clear mitigations that we're continually reviewing
to ensure that if issues do occur we are able to react in the correct way and stop reoccurrences of what happened previously.
And why does it say on the front page, think Catherine's are working? Should be Blackwood and Kiwitown?
That must be an error, I'll be happy to change that for any future reports.
And also, do we have any dates of the opening I've been waiting for the last four years?
Excuse me, that's personal.
Can we crack onto that please?
I'll be sure to pass on any action.
It's a Council matter.
No problem at all.
Thank you. Can we agree to the recommendation?
Agree.
Jonathan, you don't look happy?
Not really.
You're okay with it?
Yeah, no.
Okay.
Thank you.
Okay, well done.
Brilliant, thank you so much.
Thank you.
Cheers, thank you.
Okay, so that's it.
We'll close the meeting.
Thank you very much cabinet members.