Image Source: Google Earth (taken September 2022)
Oggy Bloggy Ogwr doesn’t receive any subsidy and isn’t funded by the BBC. If you like what I’m doing here and think this work is important in keeping locals informed of what’s happening in Bridgend, consider a donation. One-off or monthly; as little or as much as you want. Click the links below, or full details are available here.
Last week, Bridgend Council’s Communities, Environment & Housing Committee discussed a request by opposition councillors to “call-in” the recently announced £1.5 million Community Infrastructure Fund (pdf).
The fund will provide money to projects in the county that missed out on UK Government Pride in Place funding.
The grounds for the call-in were (pdf):
- The Cabinet report was “inaccurate”. It was stated that the shortlist was drawn up in consultation with opposition group leaders, but an allocation towards new changing rooms for Nantymoel RFC – which was agreed as part of these discussions – wasn’t on the final shortlist. Meanwhile, the renovation of the Newbridge Fields pavilion was included despite not being discussed with the opposition.
- Officers assured that funding towards improvements at Nantymoel RFC would be added to the Cabinet report as an amendment, but it didn’t make it in. It’s unclear whether the Cabinet made a decision without a “complete and clear account” of the funding proposal for Nantymoel RFC.
- The board making decisions for the Community Investment Fund (a BCBC intitative) is the same one making decisions related to the Pride in Place Programme. This Board doesn’t have cross-party membership.
Ahead of the meeting, the Council Leader announced that capital funding will be released for the Nantymoel RFC project (though there are long-standing calls for replacement facilities for Ogmore Vale RFC too).
Call-in to ensure “fair and robust” decision-making
Cllr. Freya Bletsoe (Ind, Oldcastle) said the call-in meeting would help decide whether the fund decisions were properly “fair and robust”.
Leader of the Opposition, Cllr. Amanda Williams (Ind, Coity Higher), raised concerns about the accuracy of the Cabinet report regarding discussions with the opposition; she’s submitted a formal complaint about this as she didn’t believe it was factually correct.
Cllr. Tim Thomas (Ind, St. Bride’s Minor & Ynysawdre) wanted clarity on whether BCBC had a formal policy preventing projects receiving funding from both the Community Investment Fund and Pride in Place. Similarly, Cllr. Steven Bletsoe (Ind, Bridgend Central) wanted assurances that funding decisions were made based on evidence, needs and fairness.
Cllr. Jonathan Pratt (Con, Newton) was somewhat critical of the decision to call-in, believing more could’ve been discussed behind the scenes or raised in the council chamber, instead of using council time and money on a full call-in meeting.
Council Leader: “Nothing untoward” behind the scenes
Council Leader, Cllr. John Spanswick (Lab, Brackla West Central), rejected any suggestion of anything underhand happening regarding funding decisions.
The Newbridge Fields pavilion was one of the projects that missed out on Pride in Place funding, but because it was included in the Community Investment Fund it didn’t need to be discussed with the opposition. Cllr. Ian Williams (Ind, Oldcastle) later voiced his support for this project, which has long been sought after by Bridgend Sports RFC.
Cllr. Spanswick added that the Cabinet could’ve taken the decision to allocate the funding without any opposition discussions, but wanted to do it “fairly”. In the end, £1 million has been allocated to projects in wards represented by councillors from the Bridgend County Independents group.
The discussions with opposition group leaders were to generate a shortlist of projects to be eligible for funding, not final approval. However, he accepted the Cabinet report could have been worded a little differently to properly reflect this. Additionally, the Board mentioned in the call-in (which criticised the lack of cross-party membership) is made up of officers and doesn’t have any representation from councillors.
Ultimately, the Committee unanimously voted not to send the decision back to the Cabinet for reconsideration.
