Decision details

Matter for Decision

The Council helped to mitigate the impact of housing development on local facilities and amenities using S106 contributions from developers. The Executive Councillor oversaw the use of S106 funds secured under the contribution types relating to informal open spaces, play provision for children and teenagers and public realm improvements.

The March 2024 S106 report to this Committee highlighted the need to develop a future programme of S106-funded projects in consultation with local councillors. The aim was to make effective and timely use of remaining generic S106 funds alongside newer specific contributions related to particular locations. The intention had been to present the proposed programme (particularly in relation to the Council’s outdoor play areas) in June. However, as this meeting now coincides with the General Election run-up period, it would be more appropriate to report this to the Committee in September instead.

In the meantime, this June 2024 report focused on those generic S106 contributions across the informal open spaces, play provision and public realm contribution types that need to be spent or contractually committed to relevant projects within the next year or so. It also considered, in the case of play provision, how the use of relevant specific S106 contributions could support the use of these time-limited S106 funds. Allocating these S106 funds to projects now would provide more time for project planning, consultation and procurement.

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services

      i.          Agreed to allocate at least £55,000 of generic informal open spaces S106 funds to supplement the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority’s grant for a strategic biodiversity improvement project at Logan’s Meadow Local Nature Reserve (East Chesterton ward), subject to business case approval (see section 4 of the Officer’s report);

     ii.          Agreed to allocate £13,054 of play provision S106 funding for improvements to Lichfield Road play area in Coleridge ward (based on £3,987 of generic contributions and £9,067 of specific contributions), subject to local consultation and business case approval (see section 5 of the Officer’s report);

   iii.          Agreed to allocate £37,941 of play provision S106 funding for improvements to King George V Recreation Ground in Trumpington ward (based on £21,671 of generic contributions and £16,270 of specific contributions), subject to local consultation and business case approval (see section 5 of the Officer’s report); and

   iv.          Agreed to allocate £69,018 of public realm S106 funds from a development in Harvest Way (Abbey ward) towards public realm improvements in the vicinity of that development, subject to business case approval (see Section 6 of the Officer’s report).

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

Scrutiny Considerations

The Technical & Specialist Services Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The intention was to make all new play provision inclusive for all users. Different items of equipment would be provided for people with different/particular needs. Details were listed in the Equalities Impact Assessment in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Officers recommended allocating funding to projects scheduled to be delivered soonest to make the most effective use of funds. Short timescales for delivery meant that consultation with residents/councillors must be appropriate/proportionate for delivery time.

   iii.          Officers were keen to engage local councillors on how best to use funding (as much as possible). Updates on scheme delivery were published on City Council webpages.

   iv.          Officers were aware of, and reviewing, various play provision accessibility issues such as surface of play areas and joints between materials.

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.