Call for probe into ‘irregular’ community grant payment

Martin Shipton

Opposition councillors at a Labour-controlled authority have called for an investigation into what they see as irregularities in the distribution of funds for community projects.

Cllr Amanda Williams, who leads the Bridgend County Independents group, told Nation.Cymru: “I am continuously challenging Bridgend County Borough Council (BCBC) over what is a worrying lack of transparency in decisions affecting community facilities, public funding and the future of local assets.

“My concerns include discrepancies in the Council’s Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) recommendations, unanswered questions about Pride in Place Impact Fund (PIPIF) allocations, and the operation of the Council’s Community Asset Transfer (CAT) Steering Group behind closed doors, without meaningful opportunities for scrutiny.

“Communities across Bridgend County Borough are being asked to trust that decisions about their facilities, their funding and their future are being made fairly.

“But how can residents have confidence in that process when funding recommendations do not reflect assurances given to opposition leaders, information about grant allocations is difficult to obtain, and decisions about community asset transfers are made behind closed doors?

“Transparency and accountability should be fundamental to the way our Council operates. At present, I have serious concerns about whether those principles are being upheld.”

Giving an example of her concerns about CIF allocation decisions, Cllr Williams said: “We had an additional £1.5m agreed by the council in July. I therefore reached out to every member of my group and also to independent community and town councillors throughout the borough. Community Councillor Dai Jones from Nantymoel proposed Nantymoel Rugby Pavilion. I therefore visited to have a look and was appalled by the level of disrepair.

“Despite paying rent to BCBC, the club were also paying for repairs, roller shutters, etc., and had managed to get half the floodlights installed but had no money to complete the other side of the pitch. I was most appalled that the toilet was in with the urinals, so any girl wanting to use the toilet would have to walk past urinals. The club has an under-eights girls’ team. I thought this was unacceptable.

“There were also holes in the roof, the boiler often fails, there was damp everywhere, tiles were falling off and ceilings were about to collapse. I took this back to BCBC and everyone agreed that it needed work and was a worthy project that everyone supported. The leader replied to my email confirming his support.

“There was a query about whether this was already going through the CAT process. I confirmed with the club that there had been talks over five years ago with previous committee members. However, when the current committee took over, they had a BCBC survey from 2020 saying there was £111k of work required, not including the removal of any asbestos, and were not prepared to transfer the building in that state. I sent all this information and copies of the report to officers.

“I was assured that this, along with other projects, would be presented to Cabinet in September. However, there was no CIF report at September’s Cabinet meeting. I knew that there was a report that had been signed off as ready to go, so I concluded that it must have been pulled for political reasons.

“My concerns intensified following the publication of a Cabinet report for the meeting on 20 October 2026, which included a proposed £230,000 allocation for Newbridge Fields North Pavilion, but nothing for Nantymoel.

“The Newbridge Fields project was not raised with me during discussions involving opposition group leaders, and when it featured in the Cabinet report it was a complete surprise to me. I’m not saying I don’t support it, but I have no knowledge of it and yet the Cabinet paper says I had agreed to it.

“Meanwhile, improvements to Nantymoel Rugby Club, which had been specifically discussed, were absent from the published recommendations despite assurances that funding for its changing facilities would be included.

‘Backdated maintenance’

“When I enquired, I was told that there was already £50,000 allocated through PIPIF for what appeared to be backdated maintenance. But as I have outlined, BCBC’s report from 2020 identified £111k of work. So this £50,000 doesn’t even come close to covering this.

“I subsequently received an assurance that an addendum would be submitted to Cabinet providing for female toilets and floodlighting, with up to an additional £100,000 being made available. That addendum was not presented or discussed by Cabinet. Again, I can only conclude that this was a political decision made by the Labour administration.

“I was given assurances, I passed those assurances on to the club, and the promised Cabinet addendum did not materialise.

“Community organisations should not be left in limbo, and elected members should not be put in the position of having to explain why commitments they were assured would happen have not been delivered.”

Freedom of Information request

Independent Councillor Tim Thomas said: “I had to resort to a Freedom of Information request to obtain details of the Pride in Place Impact Funding, waiting four months for a response until the Information Commissioner’s Office intervened. The information received has reinforced my concerns, with the majority of rejected bids reportedly coming from non-Labour wards. This raises serious questions about fairness, consistency and transparency in how these decisions were made.

“Locally, St Brides Minor Community Council has faced repeated obstacles in trying to secure funding for a multi-use games area, with different concerns raised at each stage and little meaningful progress. Communities should not have to fight this hard to secure investment in facilities that benefit local residents.

“I am calling for a full review of how this funding was administered, including the assessment and rejection of bids, to ensure the process was fair and transparent. The council must acknowledge any shortcomings, learn lessons and restore public confidence in how funding decisions are made.”

A Bridgend County Borough Council spokesman responded: “We can confirm that all decisions are made through the appropriate decision-making processes in line with the Council’s constitution, governance arrangements and any external grant funding conditions.”