Agenda item

2.1      Sakthi Suriyaprakasam introduced herself as Community Development Service Manager and spoke about the role of the Community Development Team in administering the NCIL fund in addition to their work in Local Assemblies and the Main Grants programme, and liaison with the voluntary and community sector within the borough.

2.2      Some issues with accessing the meeting by fellow residents were shared by attendees and the link to the meeting was circulated via email and WhatsApp to allow other attendees to join.

2.3      It was clarified that some questions had been raised about Assemblies and whether they were continuing. The cuts to the council and to the assemblies programme was outlined. It was confirmed that the Council are committing to two assembly meetings per year but are looking at how they can work with communities to have additional meetings that are more community led.

2.4      Officers shared the NCIL presentation (n.b. slides will be made available via the Local Assemblies page for Evelyn ward). This presentation outlined:

·      The purpose of the assembly meeting

·      The background to NCIL, the strategy for allocating funds, the support and assistance available

·      Evelyn’s NCIL priorities (identified via Commonplace), the funding criteria, the CIL regulations that needed to be met

·      The timeline, the scoring process and the next stages

·      An overview of the projects and the process for decision making

·      A description of each of the 20 projects recommended and the level of funding total

·      An overview of the 13 non-recommended projects

2.5      Attendees were requested to raise hands and ask any questions/make comments. Questions and comments both spoken and in the meeting chat broadly fell into the following categories:

1.      Advance promotion of the meeting in the ward

2.      Practical questions about the format of the meeting and clarifying follow-ups

3.      The NCIL allocation process and the wider CIL programme   

4.      The application process

5.      The overall programme      

6.      Specific projects and their suitability for NCIL funding 

7.      Specific projects and whether there is a local need      

8.      Concerns over reduced/non-funded projects     

9.      Comments in support of NCIL programme and recommendations for Evelyn

10.   Comments in support of NCIL process

2.6      Summaries of the main points raised in each of these areas, and officer responses are below:

2.6.1        Advance promotion of the meeting in the ward:

A number of residents expressed concern that households had not received the invitation via post, and that the timing of the delivery may not have allowed sufficient time to adequately review the project information prior to the meeting. It was commented that this was an ongoing issue within the ward.

Officers apologised, explained the delivery process, and acknowledged the importance of local networks in helping to promote local meetings to fellow residents and ward members.

2.6.2        Practical questions about the format of the meeting and clarifying follow ups:

The use of Eventbrite was questioned, and attendees asked whether the presentation would be shared after the meeting. The point was also made that the use of the digital platform for the meeting excluded some residents from attending.

Officers explained that Eventbrite was used to capture attendance information for reporting purposes, and it was confirmed that the presentation would be shared after the meeting. The point around digital exclusion, and the request for more work directly with communities was acknowledged and noted.

2.6.3        The NCIL allocation process and the wider CIL programme:

Questions were asked relating to the following:

·      How initial consultation on the priorities was undertaken

·      Generation and allocation to wards of NCIL funds and how funds had been spent

·      How was the decision made to partially or fully fund projects and who made the decisions

A summary of the comments shared are as follows:

·      It was commented that online engagement had meant groups of residents were excluded from participating.

·      The process of engaging residents in exploring the bids put forward, and how a more community-based in-person approach would have been more beneficial for residents and funded organisations.

·      Residents expressed that S106/CIL’s purpose is to mitigate the impact of new developments in the area - hence NCIL should fund infrastructure legacy projects.

·      It was also expressed that with the Neighbourhood Plan on 'pause', there will be 15,000+ new residents, and a new Deptford Ward in 2022 which will need its own NCIL/CIL.

Officers shared the link to the initial NCIL Strategy agreed by Mayor and Cabinet: Lewisham Council – Agenda, decisions and minutes for Mayor and Cabinet on Wednesday, 5th June, 2019, 6.30 pm  

Officers also acknowledged that this was the first time funds had been allocated in this way, and that significant learning had taken place in terms of this process, and said they would feed back a summary to Mayor and Cabinet.

Officers explained that in order to spread the funding as far as possible across the priorities, and to give as much as possible to as many of the high-scoring applications as possible, officers weren’t always able offer full funding, so the decision was made that where projects that had set out a variety of elements, and it was felt it would still be possible to deliver elements, this would be recommended. Applicants have been notified and no organisations have come back to say that they are not wanting to deliver, or are unable to deliver.

Officers confirmed that the first process after the Mayor and Cabinet meeting in May will be to go back to organisations and working out with them what can be delivered with the funding recommended. 

2.6.4        The application process

Attendees at the meeting commented in the chat that the application process needed to be made easier, and that support should be provided for more ‘collective bids’.

The need for a collective and coordinated approach was also echoed by others in the chat and in presenting their spoken comments.

Officers noted these comments, confirmed there had been significant learning as a result of the programme delivery and said a summary would be fed back to Mayor and Cabinet.

2.6.5        The overall programme

Attendees at the meeting shared a variety of comments via the chat, and through spoken questions/comments:

A number of people commented on the overall programme being youth-focussed and there not being much for older residents.

Officers were urged by a number of contributors not to forget the Pepys Estate.

A number of comments were shared questioning whether or not NCIL should be used to fund certain types of project, believing it was more appropriate to fund medium and longer term infrastructure and legacy projects.

Officers noted these comments and said a summary would be fed back to Mayor & Cabinet.

Officers confirmed that there were two types of funding organisations could apply for through the CIL regulations – categories A & B. Category A is for the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure and/or category B  is for anything else that is concerned with addressing the demands that development places on an area.

Officers also noted that through the presentation, they had spoken about the COVID-19 recovery priority, which was added to all ward’s priorities.

2.6.6        Specific projects and their suitability for NCIL funding

Continuing on from the comments relating to the wider programme, there were a number of questions as to whether NCIL funds should be used to support specific ‘shorter term’ projects and services and whether the funding for these should have come from other council departments or other sources.

Recommended funding for energy advice was queried by a resident as to whether it was an effective mechanism for support. It was suggested that this advice was already being given to residents through other providers, and that it would be more beneficial to actually distribute the money directly to households to address fuel poverty.

It was separately queried whether recommended funding for a project at a nursery, and replacement playground equipment should be funded by other council resources, and whether one application for a youth project represented double funding. 

The recommendation to fund a CIC that was associated with a development company was queried, with a number of attendees questioning whether this might represent passing back some of the NCIL charge placed on a developer, and whether the recommendation was appropriate given the source and purpose of NCIL funding.

In the case of the project offering energy advice, clarification was given by the bidding organisation, as it was felt that the summary presented by officers did not demonstrate sufficient detail. Officers agreed to go back and check the detail included in the summary to ensure accuracy.

Officers also agreed to go back and check whether the recommendations for the queried applications could be upheld.

2.6.7        Specific projects and whether there is a local need

The need for the following projects was questioned via the chat, and through spoken questions/comments:

The applications for three green/play-space projects were questioned, one as to whether there was a need as it was being duplicated elsewhere, one as to whether it should be prioritised over other more run-down areas, and one around the suitability of the location.

One of the recommended projects expressed disappointment that they had not been awarded as much as they had requested. They expressed the view that young people they were in touch with had not been consulted or engaged with the NCIL recommendations relating to other youth projects.

Officers noted these comments and said a summary would be fed back to Mayor and Cabinet.

2.6.8        Concerns over reduced/non-funded projects

Specific mention was given via the chat to two reduced/un-funded projects:

The question was asked why one community centre did not receive full funding (see response in 2.6.3 relating to reduced funding allocations), and why one community garden did not receive full funding.

The evaluation process was outlined in the presentation given by officers, and it was made clear that assessments of individual projects would not be discussed publicly, but that individual organisations could approach the NCIL team to request feedback in relation to their own application.

2.6.9    Comments in support of NCIL programme and recommendations for Evelyn

Seven comments were received in support of the overall programme for Evelyn

2.6.10     Comments in support of NCIL process

One comment was received in support of the application process and the support provided to applicants.

2.7      Officers summarised saying that broadly, there were a lot of questions about the process, there were particular questions about 3 or 4 projects, stating that a summary of people’s views, and questions and comments will be fed back to Mayor and Cabinet, and that the outcome of the meeting on the 9^th March will be available for Evelyn Assembly members.

2.8      Officers thanked everyone for participating and sharing their views.