Decision details

To prioritise which proposed projects for funding from developer contributions should be taken forward.

Mr Ian Cray (Vice Chair) of the Accordia Residents Association addressed the committee and made the following comments

 

i.          Officers were thanked for resolving the omission of the Trumpington Trim Trail.

 

ii.                  Analysis was requested on the £60,000 allocated to the New Town Forum.

 

iii.                Assurance was sought on the governance arrangement for the programme going forward.

 

The Head of Community Development explained that £60,000 was currently unallocated in the New Town Forum fund and that was not affected by the devolving decision making project. It was however explained that the money allocated to the forum could not be used to fund certain projects that the forum wished to progress

 

The Urban Growth Project Manager clarified the governance arrangements for the devolving decision making project, and highlighted that further information was available on www.cambridge.gov.uk/s106. 

 

The committee received a report from the Urban Growth Project Manager regarding the devolution of decision-making to area committees on the use of developer contributions to fund local projects.

 

It was explained that the decisions of the committee were being informed by the outcomes of the South Area workshop, which had been held on 4 October 2012. The outcomes of the workshop were appended to committee report at appendix C.

 

The city councillors on the Area Committee were asked to agree their short-term project priorities that could be completed by the end of March 2014. The committee was asked to agree three priorities plus any small community facilities grants that are ready to go forward from South Area (namely, the Cherry Hinton community centre project – stage 1). The committee was reminded of the need to make sure that its choices are affordable within the funding currently available to the South Area and that it bears in mind the sort of longer-term projects that it might want to fund in due course.

 

The Urban Growth Project Manager clarified three points of detail in the report.

 

Firstly, the suggestion of a trim trail at Accordia, which was made during the consultation, had been inadvertently omitted from the report. It was noted that this project was now on the list of eligible/short-term deliverable options for the Area Committee to consider.

 

Secondly, it was highlighted that the suggestion of a porch café at the Centre at St Paul's was a project that would benefit more than one area. It was therefore proposed to report this project proposal to the Community Services Scrutiny Committee in January 2013 when options for city-wide projects will be considered.

 

Thirdly, even though the suggestion of funding for trees at Wandlebury is outside the city boundary (and is therefore ineligible for city council developer contributions) it will be reported to the Community Services Scrutiny Committee in January, in case any other sources of funding that might be available.

 

The committee made the following comments on the report

 

i.        In light of the information received on the day of the committee regarding the maximum number of priorities, which can be delivered, why did the committee report in section 5.1 still refer to 3-5 projects? The Urban Growth Project Manager explained that this had been clarified post‑publication, and 3 prioritised projects were being sought from each area committee at this stage.

 

ii.          Frustration was expressed regarding the decision relating to the suggestion regarding grouping projects together related to Cherry Hinton Recreation Ground. Cherry Hinton Ward Councillors explained that by delivering the projects together efficiencies of scale could be realised, and the disturbance to residents could be minimised. Ward Councillors also highlighted the proximity of the proposed schemes, and explained that previously (prior to devolved decisions on developer contributions) it had been suggested that they could be delivered together. The Head of Streets and Open Spaces acknowledged the frustration of the Ward Councillors, but explained that the officer who had given the advice had not been aware of the wider devolved developer contributions programme across all four areas and the consequential implications.

 

iii.          Clarification was requested on the reference to 3 to 5 projects in the report. The Urban Growth Project Manager explained that this had been stated in the report in this way to allow the area committee the flexibility to move forward with project proposals based on grants funded by developer contributions to other organisations that would be reasonably straightforward to process. It was noted that West/Central Area Committee in November 2012 had agreed to prioritise three projects plus a small community facilities grant.

 

iv.          Cherry Hinton Ward Councillors expressed concern regarding the implication of the decision to restrict the Area Committee to just three priorities and not permitting the combination of similar projects, particularly as the funding was available. The Ward Councillors acknowledged that following more detailed investigation it would be appropriate, if officers identified significant problems in delivering the projects by March 2014, to seek further guidance and direction from the Area Committee but that this should occur once the projects had been prioritised.

 

v.          Councillor Stuart explained that with the prioritisation of projects money was not the primary limiting factor, but that officer resources were more limited and the committee should make a decision based on officer advice to prioritise three projects to avoid raising unrealistic expectations.

 

vi.          Clarification was requested on the extent to which the Cherry Hinton Recreation Ground projects had been separately identified, and at what stage in the process. It was agreed that it was conceivable that a single project could have been proposed containing all three elements. The Cherry Hinton Ward Councillors highlighted that many of the projects significantly pre-dated the current process, and that designs had already been drawn up for several schemes.

 

vii.          County Councillor Heathcock expressed frustration regarding references to the voting arrangements in the introduction, which precluded County Councillors from voting. Further information was requested on the Netherhall School Cricket Pavilion scheme. The Urban Growth Project Manager explained that the project had been identified through the workshops. The Urban Growth Project Manager agreed to provide more information to the County Council outside of the meeting.

 

viii.          County Councillor Heathcock highlighted that the proposals to replace Nightingale Avenue Pavilion were long running, and clarification was requested on the likely timescale for delivering the project and whether any alternative funding opportunities other than the Bell School Section 106 agreement had been identified. The Urban Growth Project Manager explained that at present no alternative funding had been identified at this stage and, until the development was resolved it was difficult to identify the timescale for the project. In response to a supplementary question the Urban Growth Project Manager explained that due to the size of the project the Bell School S106 agreement was the most likely funding source, however, it may be possible for developer contributions funding to be identified through other developments.

 

ix.      It was agreed that the process needed to be carefully managed, to avoid unrealistically raising expectation if projects identified at the workshop could not be delivered in the short term. Cherry Hinton Ward Councillors highlighted that a number of the projects in Cherry Hinton significantly pre-dated the workshop process. The Urban Growth Project Manager outlined the proposed programme management arrangements going forward.

 

x.          Cherry Hinton Ward Councillors re-iterated their previous concern regarding the decisions made regarding the number of projects to be short-listed, particularly as the money was not the limiting factor. The Urban Growth Project Manager acknowledged the concerns raised, but re-iterated that the intention was that 3 projects per area plus strategic projects would form the overall programme, and that additional projects would potentially prejudice the ability of the City Council to deliver the overall programme.

 

xi.          Councillor Blackhurst suggested, as a compromise, that councillors from the three wards in the South Area should identify a priority project for the ward and that the Cherry Hinton projects should be put in priority order with the intention of progressing all three if the resources permitted. The Cherry Hinton Ward Councillors prioritised the projects in the following order:

 

·        Skateboard Park

·        Playground improvements

·        Football goals.

 

The Urban Growth Project Manager sought further clarification of the view of the committee regarding the removal of the Centre at St Paul’s from the South Area Committee list, and its addition to the city wide strategic list. A representative of the Centre at St Paul’s addressed the meeting and expressed significant concern about the lack of prior notification of the proposed change and the potential for the project to be “lost” in the system. The chair acknowledged the concern raised, but explained that it was not appropriate at this to open a discussion on all the proposed projects.

 

xii.          Councillor Birtles expressed disappointment that only two short-term projects had been identified through the assessment of the proposals for Queen Edith’s arising from the workshop. The Queen Edith’s Ward Councillors agreed to prioritise the Outdoor fitness equipment/ trim trail at Nightingale Avenue Rec. Ground (Q06) project.

 

xiii.    The Trumpington Ward Councillors suggested that the conversion of the Hanover Court/Princess Court laundry into a community space (T02) should be adopted as a priority.

 

Resolved (Unanimously)

 

i.  To prioritise the following projects, subject to project appraisal and the identification of appropriate funding to meet any related revenue and maintenance costs:

 

·        Cherry Hinton Recreation Ground Improvements, comprising

 

·        More sophisticated skate park at Cherry Hinton Recreation Ground (C09)

 

·        Upgrade play equipment for young children at Cherry Hinton Recreation Ground (C08)

 

·        Smaller (five-a-side) football goals at Cherry Hinton Recreation Ground (C011)

 

·        Outdoor fitness equipment/ trim trail at Nightingale Avenue Rec. Ground (Q06)

 

·        Convert Hanover Court/Princess Court laundry into a community space (T02)

 

ii.          Officers to keep the committee advised of progress with the projects.

 

iii.  It was further agreed to endorse the Cherry Hinton Community Centre project – Stage 1 (C02) as a priority.

 

iii.      It was further agreed to endorse the Cherry Hinton Community Centre project – Stage 1 (C02) as a priority.