Home   News   Article

Poor uptake for Highland Council flagship fund





Highland councillors will discuss how to make the scheme work on Thursday
Highland councillors will discuss how to make the scheme work on Thursday

A flagship £1 million pot for Highland communities willing to take responsibility for services such as grass cutting or gritting is largely unspent, it has emerged.

Highland Council’s community challenge fund was launched in January last year but successful applicants have been thin on the ground and only two have secured grants so far.

Following the poor response, a shake-up of the fledgling scheme is now on the cards.

Councillors will be asked next week to back a proposal that it would be "more helpful" to identify potential opportunities to community leaders and also widen the criteria for grant eligibility.

The fund was a key plank of the Liberal Democratic manifesto prior to the 2012 elections and was adopted by the rainbow coalition, which is also made up of the SNP and Labour, afterwards.

The pot offers financial help to community groups which are confident they can provide a service at a lower cost or to a higher standard than the council.

Despite 47 applications of interest, only community organisations in Kyle of Lochalsh and Fort Augustus have been successful so far.

Kyle’s community trust secured £13,800 per annum to take over the running of the public toilets and pontoons. The Loch Ness-side village group was awarded £15,500 and has taken on the village officer role to carry out street cleansing, footpath gritting and some grounds maintenance.

Another four community groups are working on their business cases.

In a report to the full council, which meets in Inverness on Thursday, policy officer Alison Clark states that the fund needs to be promoted more heavily to councillors, staff and the public.

Critics had warned the council was trying to shirk its responsibilities through the fund’s creation but that was dismissed by depute leader David Alston.

The Lib Dem councillor had said communities often had a better idea of what needed to be tackled on the ground but admitted it could involve more responsibility.

A cross-party panel of senior councillors judge the applications and make recommendations.


Do you want to respond to this article? If so, click here to submit your thoughts and they may be published in print.


This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies - Learn More