BIG puts Navca straight on Reaching Communities fund

Fundraising | Gareth Jones | 17 Feb 2010

The Big Lottery Fund has denied an accusation by Navca chief Kevin Curley that the promised capital funding stream for community buildings will merely be part of the £100m Reaching Communities fund.

Responding to comments by Curley on Twitter, BIG chief executive Peter Wanless (pictured) said: “Kevin suggests that the dedicated stream of funding for capital projects that we have promised to introduce is included within the figure of 'at least £100m a year' we have earmarked for Reaching Communities in England.

“That is not the case. This stream of funding will be on top of that figure.”

In a string of five tweets on Monday night, Curley also complained that the fund will again be “hugely” oversubscribed, asserting that four years ago it was oversubscribed by 12 to one, and questioned why it couldn’t be given a bigger budget.

But Wanless responded: “Of course our funding is popular and there are many more good causes than we have cash available. But success rates have been more like one in four than one in 12 in recent times.

“What is more, the changes we have announced will enable more projects to get an earlier signal as to whether they are likely to be successful or not.

“This will save them the effort of making nugatory bids and it will release money we would spend on administering those ultimately unsuccessful bids for more productive purposes.”

Wanless also refuted Curley’s “mischievous” suggestion that BIG had been told to hold money back for an incoming government’s priorities, stating: “I can assure you – and him – that this is not the case.”

Directory: Big Lottery Fund | National Association of Voluntary and Community Action
Who's Who: Kevin Curley

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.