Agenda item


The Chairman reported on the process :-


  • Once the funding application had been submitted it would be processed by the Community Board Co-ordinator, Chairman and convenor of Sub Group
  • The application would be considered by the Sub Group and make recommendations to the Board. The Sub Groups were open to everyone.
  • The Board would consider the funding application and agree by consensus.
  • If there was an urgent application a decision would be taken via email. Any covid related funding would be processed within 48 hours (Sub Group chaired by Cllr Hollis).
  • This would be put in writing for the Board and added to the website.
  • All Boards work in a similar fashion but adaptions would be made to meet local requirements.
  • The Board has spent £47,000 and has £133,000 remaining. The Board should seek out good projects and encourage funding applications.
  • In terms of transport projects these had to be considered by TfB who then produced a Project Initiation Document. They would then scope the project with a budget estimate and this would be considered at the next Board meeting.


During discussion the following points were made:-


  • In terms of consensus this meant getting a feel from the meeting that the majority of people were in favour. Concern was expressed regarding a Sub-Group where the majority were in favour but were overruled by a smaller number of Members who expressed strong concerns against the proposal. The Chairman reported that this should not be allowed to happen and that each proposal should be looked at on merit, whether it met local needs and whether it was good value for money. Decision making should be consistent.
  • Cllr Darby asked for clarification on the figures – for example the Community Area Priority Fund did not include the wildflower project. There were also 3 Health and Wellbeing Projects not included. The Chalfont St Peter bollards had not appeared in any list. The Community Board Co-ordinator reported that the list was up to date when the agenda was published and only included what funding had been awarded and had been confirmed by letter. The bollards scheme had been approved at Sub-Group level but still needed to be confirmed by TfB. The Community Board Co-ordinator reported that this had been originally put forward as an environment project to stop cars going on the verges which should help reduce flooding. TfB needed to check whether this scheme would impact on other services such as electricity cables. Information on the PIDs should be available in March and the Parish Council had been updated. The Community Board Co-ordinator would check the Health and Wellbeing Projects. A Member commented that it would be helpful to have more detail on what else was in the pipeline to show how much funding had already been committed.

Action: Ani Sultan

  • Cllr Rush commented that there was a reasonable amount of funding left for Local Infrastructure projects and encouraged funding applications to be put forward. This related to projected growth.
  • Cllr Brackin commented that the Community Board priorities were not clear and therefore it was difficult to know which funding applications should be put forward. In addition that the dates of the Sub Groups were not published which made it difficult to attend. The Community Board Co-ordinator reported that this year’s priorities had been set but the Board would need to consider next year’s priorities in the coming months. The dates for Sub-Groups were being sent out including a calendar for the whole year.
  • Cllr Reed expressed concern that more information should be provided including a business case for higher figures. He also asked for assurance that with the Dial A Ride funding application that no other Community Boards were supporting the same project. He also asked for a list of the operating Sub-Groups and their membership. Members noted that the website has information on the Sub-Groups with the convener’s details.
  • Ms Griffiths asked when the funding would be received for the community fridge project. The Community Board Co-ordinator reported that they were waiting for information on terms and conditions and she would contact Louise Chamberlain.
  • In terms of funding this could be rolled over to the following year.
  • A Member asked for further information on projects that were pending.

Supporting documents: