Brampton Park alternative funding streams application result and feedback

Unfortunately, the concern we had about whether our ClimateYouChange application for funding for Brampton Park would meet the strict funding criteria have been borne out with the response from the funding panel members.

‘Overall [sic] the panel were supportive of this project however as the Grow Back Greener Fund is oversubscribed, we could not support all good applications and projects that aligned more closely with the priorities of this Fund with regards to improving access to green space and increasing climate resilience were prioritised.’

The project proposal did not sufficiently align with the fund prioritising projects situated in areas with a lack of access to green space:

‘Applications are assessed partly by the priority of the project location in order to reduce inequalities in access to green space across London. As this project was situated within an existing park, panel members felt that it was not as high a priority location in terms of access to green space as some other projects.’

It also did not meet their requirements for nature restoration, as the project included an existing area of hardstanding. (The council had required us to factor this into our design, as they may need to take the site back in the future for redevelopment.) This sadly was another sticking point which did not help our funding bid:

‘The panel members reviewed the images of the concrete space. In line with the priorities of the Fund and the Mayor’s ambitions to increase London’s climate resilience, the panel would encourage this project to develop a more ambitious plan to de-pave the concreate area rather than constructing planters on top of the concrete space.’

The funders did not however completely rule out funding a ClimateYouChange project for Brampton Park:

‘We would encourage you to continue pursuing this with Newham Council’s [sic] to understand whether this would be feasible at this site and submit a revised application with a de-paving element.’

Whilst it is encouraging to hear that the funder might consider another application from us with this revision, we do not believe that the council will grant us the right to de-pave the site. Our understanding is that the council might take back the site at a later date, presumably so they would have the option of redeveloping with a permanent structure or other building work, as it would effectively still be a brownfield site owing to the hardstanding. (Our default position was that we would try to relocate the planters, herb garden and fruit trees/bushes if the council need the site back.)

It's a shame that our project could not meet the required bar for being in an area of sufficient green space deprivation and one where we could not improve the climate resilience in respect of the hardstanding. We were however happy with the positive feedback which we received on the overall nature of the project design:

‘Our application scorers found the project to be backed by detailed design and good community consultation led by Newham Council. The £22K budget also seemed good value for money. The feedback regarding greater potential to improve the design of the proposed garden relates to the potential to add a de-paving element. Otherwise, your ideas for the project were conveyed well in the application.’

We therefore feel encouraged by the response to the project elements which we could control and will take this application process as a positive learning experience to help with future project applications. There have been valuable lessons learned.