Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision details
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Communities.
Decision status: Recommendations Approved
Is Key decision?: Yes
Is subject to call in?: No
Approve scope and approach to the review.
Approve management arrangements for centres in growth sites
Matter for
Decision
The Officer’s report outlined the proposed approach for a strategic
review of community provision to ensure resources are targeted to meet existing
and future needs. The review would consider facilities provided by the Council and
others, also the opportunity for collaboration and engagement with local people
and other stakeholders. The report also considered requests by the outside
bodies responsible for new community centres in growth sites for the City
Council’s involvement in management arrangements at Clay Farm and Storey’s
Field.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Communities
i.
Agreed the approach to the review
of community provision as outlined in sections 3.4 to 3.8 of the report.
ii.
Approved the proposed management
arrangements for Storeys Field Community Centre insofar as they relate to
Cambridge City Council and use of its resources.
iii.
Approved the proposed management
arrangements for The Clay Farm Centre insofar as they relate to Cambridge City
Council and use of its resources.
iv.
Delegated any further decisions in
respect of Council commitments to implementation of (ii) and (iii) [above] to
the Director of Customer and Community Services.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny
Considerations
The Committee received a report from the Head of Communities, Arts and Recreation. She tabled a paper setting out visitor
numbers to all community centres.
Liberal Democrat Councillors made the following comments in response to
the report:
i.
Community Services Members would like to be
appraised of sustainability issues as per other committees.
ii.
Requested the community centre sustainability
review be reported back to Community Services.
iii.
Thanked Officers for attending Storeys Field
community Centre meetings to provide advice and support.
In response to Members’ questions about Community
Centres the Head of Communities, Arts and Recreation; Community Funding
& Development Manager and Neighbourhood
Community Development Manager said the following:
i.
The City Council owned eight
community/neighbourhood centres. Five of these are managed by the Council.
Three of the small neighbourhood centres were directly managed by local groups.
Service level agreements are in place for these and there are different
information monitoring requirements as voluntary organisations do not have the
resources to capture data in the same way as the Council.
ii.
Officers undertook to provide committee Members
with total community centre visitor number information after the committee.
The Executive Councillor said that Officers
were reviewing how centres met current and future needs to inform future
direction of resources and investment. A data gathering exercise would be
undertaken in the first phase, then councillors and community centre users
would be consulted as part of the review. No decisions would be made in advance
of receipt of officer conclusions.
iii.
Reports would be brought to committee at various
stages of the work. Officers would involve and update members during the review
process. Links would be made to other strategies as part of the evidence base
for review.
iv.
The community facility review would cover all
facilities, including those provided in schools and churches. It would capture
current use, demand and gaps. All
providers would get the same questionnaire. Collected data would be collated
and reported back to committee in January 2016.
v.
Community Centres are part of the Council’s carbon
management plan. Officers undertook to circulate a link to this in respect of
community centres.
Councillor O’Connell proposed the following
amendments to recommendation (i):
After the end of recommendation 2.1, add:
With the following changes:
-
3.4: Addition of Sustainability to list of
outcomes.
-
3.4: Addition of Schools for scope of work.
-
3.7: Phase two, first bullet point: Delete
“Consider options for future focus of The Meadows and opportunity for any
redirection of resource from there”.
-
3.7: Phase three: Delete July 2016 decision point.
-
Addition of reports to the Executive Councillor and
Community Services Scrutiny Committee for approval between each phase.
The Executive Councillor said that points
3.4 and 3.7 did not need to be amended as the scope of the review already
covered points Liberal Democrat Councillors wanted to cover.
The Director of Customer and Community
Services referred to paragraph 3.8 of the Officer’s report which set out the timetable
for the review. Reports would be brought back to committee for decision, but
not for information. Officers could offer information briefings to councillors
outside of the scrutiny committee.
Councillor O’Connell sought reassurance that
the audit phase results would be reported back to committee and that resources
would not be arbitrarily cut for The Meadows (it had the highest costs, but
also highest usage).
The Executive Councillor said that resources
would be determined by consultation/audit phase 1 results.
The Head of Communities, Arts and Recreation re-iterated that the committee
would be kept involved and informed. Reports would be brought back to the
committee whenever a decision was required.
The amendment was lost by 5 votes to 3. Councillors
then voted on the original recommendations.
The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 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.
Publication date: 12/11/2015
Date of decision: 08/10/2015