Agenda item

Please note that this report is not yet available and will be dispatched next week.

Jenny Hoadley drew NP members’ attention to the recommendations of the Small Grants Panel in respect of the following applications.

Gloucester Road Central

This application would improve the environment around Gloucester Road and was supported by traders. It would be used to fund several banners from Gloucester Road up to Gainsborough Square, with the remaining part of the funding (£7,000) to be made by traders.

The NP discussed whether or not the amount funded by the NP should be greater than proposed by the Small Grants Fund group ie 50%.

The following comments were made:

(1)        Crowd funding could be used to promote this scheme and encourage more traders to support it. Reference was made to Destination Bristol’s recent crowd funding workshop and it was suggested that an NP member could be trained to do this;

(2)        Extra investment up to 50% would help to ensure that the scheme was as successful as possible;

(3)        The NP should remain with the proposed recommendation of the Group to fund £4,820. The remaining amount of funding can be obtained – there are other sources which could be used to provide it;

(4)        The recommended amount of funding by the Small Grants Group was a significant amount

It was moved by Councillor Negus and seconded by Councillor Combley that £4820 be awarded to this Group as recommended by the Small Grants Sub Group.

An amendment was moved by Councillor Brook, which was not seconded, that 50% of the £13,450 requested be awarded to this Group.

Upon being put to the vote, the original motion was approved (6 for, 0 against).

Resolved (unanimously) by the Neighbourhood Committee –

(1)        that Gloucester Road Central be awarded £4,820 as recommended by the Small Grants Sub Group

(2)        that subject to eligibility part of the Gloucester Road Central Application should be funded through CIL income

TIGER

Following a subsequent approach that had been made to TIGER, they had indicated that they would be delighted to discuss the matter further with Cotham School and submit a separate application at a later date.

NP members expressed support for the suggestion of a subsequent application involving Cotham School.

It was moved by Councillor Fodor, seconded by Councillor Brook and upon being put to the vote was

Resolved (unanimously) by the Neighbourhood Committee – that

(1)        TIGER be awarded £1924.44 as recommended by the Small Grants Sub Group.

(2)        the NP would be happy to receive a further application from TIGER concerning Cotham School

Action: Andrew McGrath

WIAS (Women Independent Alcohol Support)

The NP noted that this application was very important and, whilst a comparatively small amount of money, would be of huge benefit. It was encouraging to see an organisation for women in this area since Alcoholics Anonymous were more male-oriented.

It was moved by Councillor Negus, seconded by Councillor Fodor and upon being put to the vote was

Resolved (unanimously) by the Neighbourhood Committee - that WIAS be awarded £1894 as recommended by the Small Grants Sub-Group.

Action: Andrew McGrath

ABC Application.

The NP noted that this application focused on students rather than HMSO’s. The purpose of the study would be to identify the effects of the increase of student numbers – it was acknowledged that there was an interest across the country in this area. The candidate areas which had been identified included Kensington Road, Cotham Brow and Cotham Hill which had areas with high numbers of students and Multiple Occupancy (Cotham Hill was no longer in the BCR NP area). At least 12 other University cities were using planning-based threshold policies. The recent study in Kingsdown had helped massively in this area by demonstrating certain problem issues which had previously been difficult to confirm.

NP members made the following points:

(1)        This survey could undermine the relationship with students which had improved recently;

(2)        Previous analyses had identified those factors which made an area unsustainable and could then be tackled through Planning-based solutions. This survey would not do this;

(3)        The Kingsdown survey was unlikely to have revealed anything that was not already known. A more evidence-based approach was required;

(4)        The proposed survey could be seen as a means to lobby certain groups and was not a positive project-building exercise. It did not support communities or meet Planning criteria. The Local Plan would be reviewed within the next 2 years. This would be the opportunity to obtain the necessary information;

(5)        The approach could be unintentionally divisive and be perceived as targeting students;

(6)        Conclusions from the data appeared to be drawn in a particular way which was not helpful. It was important to avoid an “us and them” situation;

(7)        It was surprising how few students replied to the questionnaire.

The NP’s views were sought and they voted unanimously (0 for, 8 against) to reject the request for funding.

Councillor Negus moved, seconded by Councillor Brook and upon being put to the vote it was

Resolved (5 for, 0 against, 1 abstention) by the Neighbourhood Committee - that no funding be awarded to this organisation.

It was also noted that the deadline for grant applications for 2016/17 is 28th November 2016.

ACTION: Andrew McGrath