Having declared a personal and prejudicial interest, Councillor Mrs Hunter left the meeting for the duration of this item.

The Head of Community Development presented a report which outlined draft appraisals considered at the Appraisals Panel on 21 December 2011.  In July 2011 Cabinet resolved that funding be allocated to a new grant scheme, the Big Community Fund, which had been established to provide a source of funding to enable Members to work with local communities to improve the area.  The Appraisal Panel held on 21 December 2011 was inquorate due to the indisposition at the last minute of one of the Members due to sit on the Panel.  The four Members present appraised the six applications received and made draft recommendations.  Recommendations made at an inquorate meeting can not be ratified by a Cabinet Member decision and instead must be agreed by Cabinet decision. 

In addition to the six applications from 21 December 2011, the Cabinet considered a seventh application, from Crockenhill & Well Hill ward which had been received.  This application had not been signed as there was no ward member due to the unexpected death of the Ward Member earlier in the month. The application was also appraised by the Members present and Cabinet were asked to agree the application.

As the number of completed applications received had risen with the popularity of the Scheme, it had become more difficult to find a quorum for the Appraisal Panel from the pool of sixteen trained Members.  The report therefore also proposed to increase the number of trained Members.  Six Members who had recently attended a training session on making applications to the scheme had indicated their interest in training for the Panel and were recommended to the Cabinet to sit on the Appraisal Panel.

The Chairman reported that a Member had raised concerns surrounding consistency within the decisions taken by the Appraisal Panel and clarified that the application relating to Sevenoaks Kippington Ward had been refused on the basis that salt bins were primarily the responsibility of another authority.  The Head of Community Development reported that the Appraisal Panel adhered to detailed scoring criteria, which helped to ensure consistency, and that Members of the Panel undertook training prior to considering applications.  As well as the detailed scoring criteria, the Appraisal Panel also considered value for money, whether the application met local need and whether the application demonstrated innovation. Applications that were self-sustaining with low or no running costs were also generally considered more favourably. 

The Sevenoaks Kippington application had received a score of 36, which was one of the lowest scores since the inception of the scheme.  Only two other applications had received lower scores and both of these had been refused.  Applications relating to something that was the responsibility of another local authority generally received lower scores.  The Panel had felt that salt bins were the responsibility of Town and Parish Councils and Kent County Council Highways.  The Chairman noted that a revised application could be submitted by the Resident’s Association for review at a future meeting of the Appraisal Panel.

The Portfolio Holder for Safer Communities contended that something being the responsibility of Kent County Council should not be sufficient grounds to refuse an application and questioned whether this was in fact a legitimate ground for refusal.  If it was, the Portfolio Holder suggested that any application that related to areas that were the responsibility of another local authority that had previously been approved should be referred back to the Appraisal Panel for further review.

The Portfolio Holder for Community Wellbeing stated that she would not feel comfortable over turning a recommendation that had been made by Members who had undertaken the necessary training and had reached a decision based on a detailed appraisal.  If the Appraisal Panel had been quorate at its meeting, the issue would not have been on the agenda for Cabinet’s consideration. 

The Portfolio Holder for Safer Community requested that her objection to the refusal of the Sevenoaks Kippington application be minuted as she did not feel that sufficient reasons for refusal had been provided.  The Portfolio Holder felt that the decision should be referred to another Panel for further review and abstained from voting on this particular application when the recommendations from the draft appraisals were put to the vote.

Resolved: That

            (a) the draft appraisals from the 21 December 2011 Appraisal Panel be agreed;

(b)     the following Members should be added to the Big Community Fund Members Appraisal Panel:

Cllr Mrs Angela George

Cllr Mrs Faye Parkin

Cllr Simon Raikes

Cllr Mrs Janet Sargeant

Cllr Roderick Hogarth

Cllr Lawrence Ball