Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies for absence. 

Councillors Mike Murray and Julia Reynolds had sent their apologies for absence. 

To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests and other interests in respect of items on the agenda for this meeting.  

None

To receive notification of any matters, which the chairman determines, should be considered as urgent business and the special circumstances, which have made the matters urgent. 

None

To note that the Council approved the area committee boundaries as set out on the attached map. 

Council also approved the following terms of reference for area committees:

(a)     To promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area and incur expenditure for that aim within limits agreed by the Cabinet.

(b)     To receive reports and take decisions on matters delegated to the area committee by Cabinet in line with council policies or by the Council.

(c)     To submit reports on matters of concern to the Council, Cabinet and Scrutiny Committee as appropriate.

(d)     Question members of the Cabinet as required in relation to particular decisions, initiatives or projects relevant to the area committee.

(e)     To determine any other matters delegated to area committees by the Council. 

The committee noted its terms of reference and the revised area committee boundary as set by the Council. 

Any statements, petitions and questions from the public under standing order 32 will be made or presented at the meeting. 

The following members of the public each addressed the committee, making statements in support of their grant applications:

·         Jo Harvey on behalf of Sustainable Wantage

·         Sarah Shackleton on behalf of Grove Parish Church

·         Richard Kennell on behalf of South Oxfordshire Food and Education Alliance (SOFEA)

·         Sue Hannon on behalf of Letcombe Regis Parish Council

·         Sarah Lloyd on behalf of West Hendred Parish Council

To consider the head of corporate strategy’s report. 

The committee considered the head of corporate strategy’s report on new homes bonus grants and capital grants.  The council had received seven applications for new homes bonus grants relating to the Wantage area, and five applications for capital grants.  

New Homes Bonus grant applications

Each new homes bonus grant application had been assessed against the new homes bonus grants criteria and scoring matrix.  The officer’s recommended scores were set out in the report.  The committee assessed the applications against the grants criteria and the officer’s recommended scores, and revised the scores where marked with an asterisk (*) in the table below. 

The committee noted that Sustainable Wantage had withdrawn the part of its application relating to heating and insulation of its premises until it had agreed a longer lease.  Its application was now for funds towards the cost of its centre manager. 

The committee noted that those new homes bonus applications scoring a total of 10 or more were in the high priority funding bracket and could be awarded a grant of 100 per cent of the requested amount.  Those applications scoring 9 or less fell in to the medium priority funding bracket and could be awarded a grant of up to 75 per cent of the requested amount.  The committee awarded the new homes bonus grants accordingly. 

Capital grant applications

The committee noted that Blewbury Parish Council had applied for grants for the same village hall refurbishment project under both the new homes bonus and capital grants schemes.  The reason for this was to increase its chances of being awarded a grant if the first application failed.  The parish council had been advised that it could only be awarded a grant from one of the council’s grant schemes for the same project.  As the parish council had been awarded a grant for its village hall refurbishment project under the new homes bonus grant scheme above, its application for a capital grant was automatically refused and not considered by the committee. 

Each capital grant application had been assessed against the capital grants criteria and scoring matrix.  The officer’s recommended scores were set out in the report.  The committee assessed the applications against the grants criteria and the officer’s recommended scores, and revised the scores where marked with an asterisk (*) in the table below: