The Brentwood Community Fund was set up to give Brentwood’s communities the opportunity to provide local initiatives to improve the quality of life for local people living in the borough. The fund had £40,300 available in total in the current financial year, and grants of up £3,500 were available for applicants. The funding was open from 6^th April until 6^th  September 2015.

Members were advised that 36 applications had been received requesting a total of £95,000.

The matrix used by officers when scoring all applications was appended to the report for Members’ information and a summary spreadsheet of officer recommendations and a copy of all the application forms had been placed in each of the Members’ rooms.  Members had therefore had an opportunity to send their comments on the applications to the Chair before the committee meeting.

Cllr  Russell MOVED and Cllr Faragher SECONDED the recommendation in the report and following a full discussion a vote was taken on a show of hands and it was RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY that Members agree to fund those projects highlighted in green as outlined in Appendix B out of the Community Fund.

REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION

Each application was subject to a robust, independent and transparent scoring process to ensure fairness in the allocation of funding.

Once received the applications were scored by a panel of officers looking at the following key priorities:

·      Evidence that the bid met the criteria, the Council’s priorities and  expected outcomes

·      Evidence that the community had been involved in the development and implementation of the project

·      Evidence that the bid supported the promotion of volunteering and community participation

·      Evidence that the applicant had sought additional external funding or in kind value (such as the use of volunteers) for the project

·      Evidence that the project was sustainable once the Council’s contribution has ceased.

The applications were individually scored then ranked by their score. The recommendations by officers of the projects that met the key priorities and the amount of funding that was recommended was provided for Members’ consideration.