Agenda item

7.1  Officers introduced the report to members, stating ‘Southwark 2012’ was the name given to the project for delivering the Council’s objectives for the upcoming London 2012 Olympic and Paralympics games.

7.2  The capital legacy funding process was split over two stages. The first invited project proposals based on criteria agreed by the capital legacy group, which would look to increase activity in sports throughout the borough.  The second stage centered on gaining more detailed information from applicants in order to make assessments for feasibility and risk. The second stage 2 applications had been received in July 2011 and the capital legacy group had met at the end of August to shortlist and make final recommendations for the £2M package of capital projects.

7.3  Forty unique submissions were received by the Council for stage one the funding process. Seventeen of those projects, with a combined value of £4.51M were recommended by the capital legacy group to be successful at stage one.

7.4  The seventeen successful bids were invited to participate in stage two of the funding process. All were asked to complete a stage two application form and standardised risk log.

7.5  The deadline for completing stage two applications was 5 p.m. on Friday 22^nd July 2011. Fourteen stage two applications were received with a combined value of £3.61M. Three of the seventeen bids successful at stage one did not submit applications at stage two. This report recommends a package of ten capital projects with a combined value of £2,000,600.

7.6  Officers pointed out to members that the project objective was to promote broader participation by young people. The project would creat a number of packages and this was just one element of the overall scheme.

7.7  It was reported that 10 schools had already bought into the scheme and it’s initiatives, this would help more ordinary children and preserve our buildings.  Members questioned the ten projects recommended for full and part award are evenly distributed across the borough, officers stressed that they could only process applications received by the deadline.

7.8  Officers reported that some bids submitted were very poor, but officers had arranged to visit these groups in an attempt to apply a stronger bid.

7.9  In reponse to members questions, officers described Peckham Rye where there were problems with too many teams and not enough pitches. The problem was that the pitches get damaged and worn, this project would enhance the condition of the pitches. Historically Peckham Rye suffers from poor drainage which limites useage.

7.10  The director undertook to provide members with details on the legacy fund applications for their information.

This report was noted.