Roseland Community Energy Trust Community Interest Company Ltd “Power in the hands of the Community�
Community Consultation Report & Proposal for Community Funding February 2011
Contents: Summary Introduction Consultation Process Community Feedback Recommendations Appendices 1. List of Attendees & Map showing areas represented by consultees 2. Diagram showing RCET structure 3. Latest Copy RCET Newsletter References/Bibliography
-2-
page 3 4 6 9 14 18
19
Summary: This document sets out the results of extensive community consultations that have been undertaken by Roseland Community Energy Trust (RCET) CIC between June 2010 and February 2011 in order to identify: • how local people might want to be represented on a community owned windfarm project • how local community organisations might want to see profits from the windfarm distributed • How local community groups would want to see any funding process managed Whereas elsewhere, community ownership of similar projects has focussed on community shares issues or part ownership of individual turbines, what sets the RCET CIC windfarm project apart from other community owned wind farms is that all of the proposed turbines will be community owned and that all distributable profits will be reinvested in the local community and that the governance structures and investment opportunities will maximise opportunities for community control, influence and accountability. The community consultation events have been undertaken in 3 rounds – each building on the feedback and information gathered in previous rounds. A total of 35 residents representing 24 community based organisations have taken part out of an invitation list of 60 community based organisations. In addition, representatives of RCET CIC and the Limited Liability Partnership have met with 49 residents from the Palterton, Scarcliffe and Stony Houghton areas. RCET CIC has also produced and distributed a regular newsletter and maintained a website in order to keep local people informed and up to date with the project’s progress. The main findings of the consultations are that: • there is support for the project across the district • there is little local interest in actually running the windfarm but considerable interest in the windfarm being accountable to local people, and in local people having ownership/say/control over the distribution of profits • there is support for the suggestion that local people might be given the option of buying shares in the windfarm • local people want to see a range of funding opportunities including small grants, medium grants, strategic grants, funds for individuals • local people agree that there should be some additional time limited funding made available to those communities who are closest/most affected by the windfarm development • local people believe that a proportion of the profits should be invested in order to maintain a funding stream beyond the lifetime of the project • there is support for the creation of an independent funding panel made up of a representative from each of the parishes with an independent Chair to manage the profit distribution process and to be accountable to local communities The detailed proposals/recommendations set out in this document reflect local views and will provide the foundation for future work and community engagement if the project is successful in securing planning permission.
-3-
Introduction: The UK has much to learn from other parts of Europe when it comes to living more sustainably. The integration of low carbon lifestyles, climate protection and environmental policy has enhanced partnership working between the community, public and private sectors. The UK by comparison lags behind in all three of these areas and there remains resistance to making the sorts of changes required if we are to achieve an energy secure and sustainable future. Climate change and energy security are acknowledged as two of the long term challenges that the UK faces. Whilst both of these challenges are widely accepted there remains considerable resistance to change whether in relation to individual behaviour or in the need to develop sustainable energy generation. The Climate Change Act of 2008 set a legally binding 34% reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 and as part of its commitment to address these issues the UK has also signed up to the EU’s target of producing 15% of all energy from renewable sources by 2020. The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan aims by 2020 to have: • more than 1.2 million people in green jobs • 7 million homes benefiting from whole house makeovers and 1.5 million households producing their own clean energy • 40% of energy from low carbon sources • The UK importing half the gas that it currently does • The average new car emitting 40% less carbon than it currently does The UK government has classified energy security in 3 ways: • Physical: avoiding involuntary physical interruption to consumption • Price: avoiding unnecessary price spikes and maintaining competitive prices • Geopolitical: avoiding over reliance on specific nations The National Energy Action estimates that there are 5.4 million people (1 in 5 households) in the UK classed as fuel poor1. In Bolsover District fuel poverty is estimated to affect 16.6% (1 in 6 households approx) however in some specific wards this figure rises to 25%. In recent years, UK Government policy has increasingly supported and promoted community renewable projects. In particular during 2003/4 there were a series of initiatives to subsidise and support the development of community renewables. According to Energy4All2 “Community ownership maximises the economic benefits of renewable energy schemes and provides a conduit for promoting energy efficiency measures and an educational forum to promote changing current consumption habits. Communities include those within a certain geographical area and people who share common values”. “The benefits of community ownership include: • a direct stake in a local project • attractive financial return to members • extended economic benefits for the local area • delivery of local energy conservation projects • educational support on environmental issues • individual commitment to low carbon initiatives • membership of a nationwide network of green co-operatives” Countries with pioneering energy markets3 have enabled communities to own or collectively purchase energy and/or work in partnership with councils or the private sector. 1
People are classified as fuel poor if they spend more than 10% of their annual income to heat their homes http://www.energy4all.co.uk/energy_community.asp 3 E.g. Germany, Sweden & Denmark 2
-4-
It is within this wider context that Roseland Community Energy Trust Ltd (RCET) has been established and is developing a community owned wind farm project in Bolsover District. Rosleand Community Energy Trust was developed and funded from within the social enterprise work-stream of the Local Enterprise Organisation (LEO), which is responsible for delivering the government funded Local Enterprise Growth Initiative (LEGI) programme across the Bolsover, Mansfield and Ashfield district council areas. The wind farm is a part of LEO’s sustainability strategy as 40% of Roseland’s distributable profits will be used to fund local delivery of enterprise services across Bolsover, Mansfield and Ashfield. Elsewhere, community ownership has focussed on community shares issues or part ownership of individual turbines. What sets the Roseland wind farm project apart from other community owned wind farms is that all the proposed turbines will be community owned and that all distributable profits will be reinvested in the local community.4
4
Local community is defined as Bolsover district. 40% of the distributable profit will be gift aided to LEO Ltd for investment in enterprise education and locally delivered business support in the Bolsover, Ashfield & Mansfield areas.
-5-
Consultation Process: Community consultation and engagement in this project has always been seen as an essential ingredient in: • developing and building community ownership and control over the windfarm project • building capacity and understanding about energy and environmental issues • informing RCET decision making and grounding those decisions in community need and aspirations Additionally, community consultation and engagement is seen as an essential part of the planning process providing local people with a legitimate way to voice their concerns and/or support for local developments. It is RCET’s contention that the better informed local people are and the more engaged in the decision making process the less likely that there will be resistance to the development partly because of better understanding for the need for renewable energy, partly because local people will understand the considerable benefits a community owned wind farm can bring to the community and partly because of a genuine sense of having their views heard and taken account of in the planning, development, implementation and operation of the wind farm project. In order to achieve this and meet its planning application commitments RCET designed 3 strands of community consultation & engagement: • planning application consultation • community engagement consultation • information, public debate and visits/trips to similar sized wind farm projects
Anemometer Planning Process – Consultation: Two events, one in Glapwell the other in Palterton, were held as part of the initial public consultation prior to the submission of an application to erect two anonometers – both areas are close to the proposed site of development. The consultation events comprised of a display providing background information to the project and more detailed information on the project its siting, size and potential community benefits.
Community Engagement Consultation: Two community representatives who are members of the RCET Board - the Development Trusts Association5 (DTA) and Community Voluntary Partners6 (CVP) – led on this area of work. Initially 2 workshops were organised with each workshop split into 2 parts. The first part was designed to generate ideas and explore the potential structure of RCET and how RCET could ensure effective and genuine community representation in that structure. The second part was designed to explore the potential usage and distribution of the distributable profit generated by a community wind farm and how local people could be represented in the grant making process. The initial workshops were held at Shirebrook Miners Welfare and invitations were sent out to all community associations, residents groups and other key community based voluntary 5
The DTA helps people set up development trusts which are community owned and led organisations which use self-help, trading for social purpose, and ownership of buildings and land, to bring about long-term social, economic and environmental benefits in their community. 6 CVP is the umbrella body for the community and voluntary sector in Bolsover District
-6-
organisations throughout Bolsover district listed on CVP’s database7. 15 local residents attended representing 9 community associations/residents groups. These initial workshops were then followed by a 2nd round of workshops – one in the north of the district in Clowne Community Centre and the other in the South of the district at South Normanton Community Centre. 13 residents attended representing 9 groups. The second round of workshops focussed on the profit distribution aspects of the project not structural issues primarily because legal and professional advice had already identified the required structures for a project of this size and complexity. These structures were discussed at the second round workshops. A 3rd round of consultation workshops were organised and took place in February 2011. These took place in South Normanton Community Centre and in Shirebrook Miners Welfare. At these workshops the initial findings and recommendations for the profit distribution aspects the Roseland Wind Farm were presented, debated and further refined. Participants were also asked to comment on proposals for a community share offer. These workshops were attended by 21 residents, representing 16 local groups. In total the workshops were attended by 35 residents representing 24 community based organisations.8 Following on from the general community consultation workshops John Hudson (Roseland Limited Liability Partnership CEO) and Lorna Wallace (Roseland Community Energy Trust Community Interest Company)9 held an initial meet with the Palterton & Community Action coordinating Group and, following this, a public meeting was held with local residents from the Palterton, Scarcliffe and Stony Houghton areas. This meeting was attended by 49 residents and provided an opportunity to discuss the windfarm structures, proposals for the distribution of profits from the windfarm and opportunities for community investment.
Information, Public Debate and Visits: RCET developed, as part of its community consultation and engagement strategy, a communication strategy which included: 10 • the creation & maintenance of a website 11 • the production and distribution of a newsletter • press releases, articles and letters to the local press The website was established in February 2010 and is now maintained by CVP. As well as background information on RCET and the project the website contains detailed information on the progress of the project, information on environmental and energy issues, articles specific to wind farms and alternative energy and information about how to feed in to the consultation and engagement process. An initial newsletter was produced as part of the pre planning application formal public consultation process. From November 2010 onwards a quarterly newsletter was produced on behalf of RCET by CVP. The newsletter was distributed to every house in Palterton, Scarcliffe, New Houghton, Stony Houghton and Glapwell via a professional distribution
7
CVP’s database lists the details of 187 community and voluntary organisations. Of these 187, 60 community based groups were invited 8 Appendix 1 for full list of attendees and an area map showing the communities represented 9 Appendix 2 shows the complete structure for the Roseland Windfarm Project 10 [website address] 11 Appendix 3 and website for back copies
-7-
company12 and to every Parish Council, library and Community Centre throughout Bolsover district. RCET Board members have provided interviews to the local press13 and written letters to the editor in response to resident correspondence. RCET has also actively encouraged residents to respond directly themselves to local media coverage. Presentations on the Roseland wind farm have been made to Glapwell Parish Council and to the Parish Council Liaison Group and Local Strategic Partnership Executive Support Group. Discussions about the project and the role and nature of renewable energy and wind farms in particular have been held at the Community Sector Forum and Voluntary Sector Forum facilitated by CVP.
12 13
Pro-marketing Derbyshire Times, The Chad, Radio Sheffield as well as local community newsletters – Shirebrook Post
-8-
Community Feedback: As already described above, the community engagement and consultation events organised between June 2010 and February 2011 were organised to explore with local residents the appropriate structures of RCET, the level of community engagement/involvement within those structures and to identify the potential usage and distribution of the distributable profit generated by a community wind farm and how local people could be represented in the grant making process.
Structures: In the first round of workshops there was strong support for the notion that the windfarm should be ‘owned’ by local people, but a variety of interpretations of what that might mean. Participants were clear that community ownership meant independence from the Council, transparency and accountability to local people, having control over how profits are spent, and knowing that control was built in so that there could be no drift from the initial intention to benefit the community. If there were shareholders, participants wanted them to have equal power and ownership with the community. In terms of governance, a distinction was made between the governance of the windgenerating company and the governance of the profit-distributing arm. There was general agreement that the Board of the former should be appointed according to the skills needed, whereas the Board of the latter should be elected via an AGM. There was no clear agreement about whether membership of a local group or just residence should be the main qualification for election to the latter. Suggestions were made as to some mechanisms for accountability to the wider community, the favourite being newsletters, annual meetings/open/festivals days and the website. These views were fed into the other strategic and business objectives during discussions with legal and professional advisors which came up with a proposed legal structure for the project.14 At the second (and subsequent) rounds of workshops, participants understood and were happy with this structure and endorsed the main elements: • Community representation on the actual wind generating side of the project via appointed Board members with specific technical and/or business skills, • Community control of profit distribution via CVP ownership and the funding panel to be established with elected representation • No direct Council place in the governance structure • Option for community shareholding built in through the IPS/Community Benefit Society • Accountability built in to the whole structure through the relationship between the different companies/Boards and via CVP • The Community Interest Company and the two Charities - CVP and LEO – providing assurance that the project cannot change direction away from community benefit During the round 3 workshops the idea of a community shares issue was discussed. The purpose of a community shares issue is in part to raise funding for the project but also in part to ensure a sense of community ownership and control over the project in addition to formal representation on the various Boards. The idea of a community shares issue was received 14
Appendix 2 showing proposed structure
-9-
with considerable enthusiasm and there was strong support for the initial issuing of preferential shares to local residents in the Bolsover district, local groups, businesses and district/parish councils. If additional funding was still required a 2nd shares issue was supported to areas/people outside of Bolsover however, these should be at non-preferential rates and without voting rights.
Funding Distribution: The key issues discussed included: 15 • the estimated distributable surplus • the geographical coverage of any funding • the types of activities to be supported • funding priorities • decision making processes • application processes Distributable Surplus: The estimated amount of distributable surplus and the 40/60% split16 were not challenged by the workshop participants. It was accepted that the figure of £1 million was a notional figure and that it could go up or down depending on a number of variables including the number of turbines, wind speeds, technological advances, cost of connecting to the national grid etc. All participants felt that the split in funding was equitable given LEOs leadership role in developing and implementing the project and their funding of the project.17 There was also considerable support for investment in small businesses and enterprise development. The work of LEO with local schools was well known and highly regarded amongst a number of the workshop participants. A number of the participants commented that investment in local businesses and especially business start up was an important way out of unemployment for local people. Geographical Coverage: Primarily the geographical discussion centred on where the remaining 60% of distributable funding should be spent; in particular the discussion centred on whether a specific amount of funding should be ring fenced for ‘proximity residents/communities’. The general consensus was that some funding should be ring fenced for the proximity area – although this area needed to be more clearly defined. However, this was not universal, a significant minority felt that the proximity area was not an area of need. “The main proximity area would be Palterton but this is quite an affluent area and not as needy” “There are more needy areas and priority should be in the area of need” “Benefit should be balanced to need” There was a clear view that any funding for proximity residents should focus on ‘benefit’ not ‘compensation’ and should be time limited. 15
Based on conservative estimates this figure is thought to be approaching £1million per year for 25 years 40% gift aided to LEO for investment in enterprise education and local business support across Bolsover, Ashfield & Mansfield; 60% to be distributed in Bolsover district 17 The 40/60% split was not being consulted on however the consensus is worth noting 16
- 10 -
“It may be an idea to frontload a fund … for proximity residents to combat potential problems” There was a strong consensus that the remainder of the funding should be focussed on areas of greatest need however, a number of participants pointed out that in areas of seeming affluence there could still be pockets of deprivation & need and that if we were too narrowly focussed some areas might became worse because they weren’t benefiting from any investment. There was strong support for some baseline research to establish local needs and priorities. Types of Activity: Part of the discussions focussed on what type of activity should be funded. Three broad areas had been identified initially: • social & community activity • economic activity • environmental activity The consensus was that all three areas should be supported although priority would be to social & community and environmental activity given the allocation to LEO – however there were areas of economic activity that local people wanted to see happen that might not be covered by this and also recognition that the LEO element that would be invested in Bolsover could be increased through match funding. “LEO is already covering the economic side of things but this shouldn’t exclude further funding” Some additional areas for potential investment were identified: • heritage • health • elderly although it was felt that these could be incorporated into the broader heading of social & community. Funding Priorities: In terms of priorities there was no specific consensus however there was a strong view that funding should be for areas of need “Funding should be based on need which might require some research” “There needs to be research into what local needs are” and some particular comments were made concerning environmental priorities. “Environment is possibly more important …. With an emphasis on greener homes” “It may be an idea to look at grants for energy efficiency” “Grants to make Community Buildings energy efficient” There was also a suggestion that some of the funding could be used to make the wind farm more visually attractive and to improve the technology. - 11 -
In terms of how the 60% distributable profit should be spent across the three broad areas the consensus was that we should ‘wait and see’ what the priorities were when we actually had the money and that over a period of time these priorities and the funding split would change. Sustainability and impact were key issues for participants with a recognition that this was a significant income stream over a long period of time and had to be used in such a way that made the maximum improvement to communities and peoples lives. All participants were keen to see a mix of funding including: • Small grants • Medium/large grants • Strategic grants • Grants for individuals (e.g. educational bursaries) There was consensus that a percentage of the 60% should be top sliced and re-invested in order to provide funding beyond the 25 year period and that a further percentage should be top sliced and built up to use for supporting larger strategic projects. There was a strong view that a guaranteed sum of money coming into the district every year could act as leverage with other funders thereby increasing the overall pot significantly. “… small grants are essential and just as important as bigger funds but the main aim is to look at sustainable projects” There was considerable consensus about what should not be funded: • Political activity • Quick fixes • Statutory provision In the two later workshops there was some additional discussion about funding statutory provision. Whilst the consensus remained that the funding should not be used for this purpose there was a desire for some flexibility depending on the impact of public sector cuts. In one of the workshops there was some discussion regarding the funding of faith activity and whether this was charitable or whether we needed to distinguish between acts of worship and wider community benefit activity undertaken by faith based organisations18. The round 3 workshops also discussed the potential for holding back spending in any given year in order to build up the available resources. Decision Making: In relation to the decision making and application processes there was considerable consensus around the need for a funding panel, independent of political control/influence, to be established and made up of people who were representative of their communities but who were also independent and impartial, skilled and experienced. “Need a good balance of representation, from all areas, geographical, age, sex, skills, etc.” A specific recommendation was that the panel should be made up of a representative from each Parish with an independent and impartial chair and that separate sub-groups be established to administer different pots. 18
E.g. whether the funding should be used to renovate/repair churches or whether it should solely be used for supporting community activity that happens in church halls which might include some renovation/repair work
- 12 -
“a representative from each parish throughout … Bolsover district” “need different panels for the different funding streams made up of people with specific skills/expertise” In the Round 3 workshops there was considerable discussion about who actually would make the strategic decisions regarding what was funded when, where and how much. It was emphasised that this would be a significant role for the funding panel, that their decisions would need to be based on sound information/research and that it would be the funding panel who would be ultimately accountable to the communities of Bolsover District. Application Processes: There was less consensus on whether the grants should be distributed via an open application process or fixed bidding rounds. The general view was that small grants should be part of an open bidding process, medium/large grants should be accessed via fixed bidding rounds and that large strategic projects should be commissioned. Small grants for individuals should be administered locally19 via referrals. Funding for individuals “should be left to communities to fund … each community [to] have a pot of money to distribute to individuals for such things as books, college bursaries etc. … through a referral system”
19
Parish level
- 13 -
Recommendations: The key purpose of the Roseland Windfarm Community Grants Scheme is to contribute to social, economic and environmental change and improvements throughout Bolsover district by working with communities to: • Identify their needs and opportunities • Plan, organise, prioritise and take action • Evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the actions undertaken all in ways which challenge oppression, discrimination and powerlessness. What this means in respect to this grants scheme is that local communities themselves: must decide what their needs and priorities are are able to gain and develop the skills and confidence as well as the resources to meet those needs by working together • develop the capacity to learn about and reflect on the difference that their activity has made and on the way that they have worked together. • •
This grants scheme will be based on a number of principles: • Social justice – fair policies and practices which respect difference and diversity • Self-determination – addressing local needs as defined by local people themselves • Collaboration – supporting people and communities to work together and take responsibility for improving things • Sustainability – giving people the opportunities and skills to secure resources, take action and bring about change in a way that respects the environment and future generations • Participation – enabling individuals and groups to take part in decision making and activity • Reflection – supporting people to learn from the work undertaken, share that learning with each other and decision makers and implement the lessons learnt in future action. This is a one time only opportunity. The RCET CIC Board are committed to ensuring that the communities of Bolsover district maximise this opportunity, strengthen their localities and build a secure and sustainable future at a time of considerable economic and social insecurity.
Structure: The whole ethos and vision of the Roseland Windfarm Community Grants Scheme is about meeting the needs of communities as identified by those communities it is therefore essential to ensure effective representation of those communities and community aspirations is in the ‘driving seat’ of the grants scheme. Effective representation will help provide transparency, accountability and equity in the design, development and the delivery of funding programmes and priorities. Some priorities for any funding panel established will include undertaking community research, identifying community needs and priorities, establishing community grant scheme priorities and allocating resources, developing application process and materials, developing communication, publicity and promotion materials and processes, linking with partners and other local funders, monitoring & evaluating the effectiveness and overall impact of the grants scheme and undertaking feedback/reporting to communities and stakeholders. The following structure is being recommended:
- 14 -
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Funding Panel20 of community representatives – one from each parish plus independent Chairperson. By bringing together a representative from each Parish we can ensure equity, reflect local diversity and differences, support and promote collaborative approaches, encourage shared learning and participation in decision making processes Funding Panel responsible for researching and identifying needs and priorities, establishing strategic priorities for funding distribution, publicising & promoting funding opportunities, allocation of resources, developing application processes and materials, developing communication, publicity and promotion materials and processes, linking with partners and other local funders, monitoring & evaluating the effectiveness and overall impact of the grants scheme and undertaking feedback/reporting to communities and stakeholders. Community representatives nominated from Community Association/Residents Group or, Bolsover District in the absence of these, nominated by local community and voluntary organisations or, in Funding the absence of an active community and voluntary sector, by open application by individuals. Independent Chairperson to be S ub - groups nominated by RCET CIC Ltd Local representatives to be independent and Funding Panel impartial, able to bring specific skills, knowledge and/or experience to the panel, Accountability willing to feedback and be accountable for Feedback panel decisions and funding distribution, and 15 Parish Representatives committed to serving a minimum of 3 years Nominated on the panel21 Funding Panel to establish separate subgroups, made up of panel members, to oversee different elements of funding distribution – Strategic Projects, Proximity Communities, Small Grants (social & community grants, environmental grants, economic grants), Medium Grants (social & community grants, environmental grants, economic grants) and Individual Grants Funding Panel to meet quarterly in order to ratify funding decisions made by sub-groups, receive reports on funding distribution, outcomes & impact, monitor & review strategy, commission strategic projects/activity, liaise with other funders, secure additional funding Sub-groups to meet monthly/quarterly/six monthly (depending on whether distribution is via open bidding or specific funding rounds) in order to receive funding applications, monitor spend, outcomes and impact Annual Report to be presented by Funding Panel at an annual community meeting providing feedback on projects funded, impact/outcomes of the projects funded, amount of funding distributed, additional funding levered in to the district and future plans.
20
Terms of Reference to be developed and drawn up by shadow Funding Panel, once planning permission secured 21 More detailed job descriptions/person specifications to be drawn up by shadow Funding Panel and distributed as part of the recruitment process
- 15 -
Funding Distribution: Primarily the Roseland Windfarm Community Grants Scheme seeks to build the commitment to collective action to bring about change in local communities based on locally defined community need and priorities. To this end grant giving priorities may change in order to reflect changing needs and priorities. Individual grants made should seek to enhance local skills and capacity to work collaboratively to meet local needs. The capacity of funded organisations should be enhanced by the grant whether through strengthening the group’s governance structures, building staff/volunteer/trustees skills so that they are better able to carry out the group’s work or through increasing the group’s sustainability and ability to secure resources and or generate additional income to continue its work. The funding provided should be flexible – focussing on outcomes and impact rather than specific activities and outputs – alternative approaches to meeting local needs should be actively explored and encouraged. Essential elements in ensuing the success and effectiveness of the grants scheme will include strong publicity and promotion, a simple, jargon free application process, support in completing the application form, evidencing need, project development and planning, and in monitoring and evaluation – during the application stage and during delivery/implementation of the project. Other activities which will contribute to the successfulness of the grants scheme include a commitment to organisation sustainability – support with fundraising, signposting to other sources of funding – and by encouraging networking, partnership working and shared learning through providing links to potential partners/funders/policy makers. Funding to be distributed in the following way (there being no absolute requirement to spend any or all available funds in any given year) 22: 40% for medium size grants (notional £240,000) split 40%/40%/20% (£96k/£96k/£48k) between social & community activity/environmental activity/economic activity. This fund would be subject to fixed funding rounds. This funding could cover project costs or core costs, revenue or capital costs, new, Funding Distribution innovative projects or existing services/activities already delivering local benefits. No maximum grant is proposed however applicants would be encouraged to identify and secure Medium Grants Small Grants match funding from Strategic Projects Individual Grants other sources Long Term Investment Proximity Residents Management, Support & Development particularly for large projects. • 15% for small grants (notional £90,000) split 40%/40%/20% (£36k/36k/18k) between social & community activity/environmental activity/economic activity. This would be an open application process with a maximum grant size of £5,000. • 14% top slice for strategic projects (notional £84,000); this funding would be specifically for commissioning large scale strategic projects and would be expected to lever in additional •
22
Figures in brackets are an annual amount based on a notional distributable profit figure of £600,000/year – this figure could go up or down in any given year
- 16 -
• • •
•
•
match funding. It would not be expected to spend this entire sum every year and may be built up over a number of years 11.5% for individual grants (notional £70,000); to be distributed locally via local community associations/organisations. It is anticipated that this funding will be distributed via referrals. 10% top slice for long term investment (£60,000); over 25 years this would provide an investment of £1.5 million 3.5% for the first 3 years for proximity residents (notional £21,000); this sum would be in addition to the individual grants (see below) and would not preclude community and voluntary groups in the proximity area bidding into the small and medium/large grants pots (see below). Whilst this sum would be for the proximity communities to decide how best to invest the Funding Panel would authorise this expenditure and ensure that the funding is distributed in accordance with overall strategic priorities.23 After 3 years this proportion would be reallocated 6% management/administration, support & development (notional £36,000); this figure to cover legal & administrative costs, publicity & promotion, monitoring, evaluation & reporting costs as well as the provision of development support (research, project development, strategic planning, management, funding, monitoring & evaluation etc) to local communities and individual groups. Particular target areas for development support could be those geographical areas with little or no community and voluntary activity and marginalised communities of interest24 Funding not spent in any given year will be carried over to following years and may be reallocated.
23
E.g. it would not be acceptable to share the money out between local proximity residents, it should be used for social/community, environmental and or economic improvements to the proximity area 24 E.g. young people, homeless, traveller communities
- 17 -
Appendices: Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Appendix 3
List of Workshop Attendees & Area Map Showing Coverage Diagram Showing RCET Structures Back Copies of RCET Newsletter
- 18 -
References/Bibliography: Community Power Empowers; Kate Hathway; Urban Forum; 2010 Funding Communities, Adding Value; Irene Evison with Natasha Roe; Community Development Foundation; 2009 Get Generating: A Renewable Energy Guide for Rural Communities; ACRE, CPRE,CRC, NALC Comparing Renewables: Windfarms; Local Government Improvement & Development Agency (http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=25287451)
- 19 -