A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Issue

Issue - meetings

Developer Contributions Devolved Decision-Making: 2nd Round Short-Listing for South Area

Meeting: 16/09/2013 - South Area Committee (Item 46)

46 Developer Contributions Devolved Decision-Making: 2nd Round Short-Listing for South Area pdf icon PDF 205 KB

Report to follow.

Minutes:

The Committee received a report from the Urban Growth Project Manager.

 

The Officer’s report outlined that the four local priorities identified by the South Area Committee in the first round of devolved decision-making are moving forward:

 

       i.          Community Hub at Cherry Hinton Library.

     ii.          Nightingale Avenue Recreation Ground trim trail.

   iii.          Princess Court/Hanover Court.

   iv.          Cherry Hinton Recreation Ground.

 

The report introduced the second round of devolved decision-making. It summarised feedback from the recent consultation about local project ideas and set out details of 33 proposals that the Committee were asked to short-list to around 8 priorities for developer contributions funding. These could be prepared, appraised and implemented from spring 2014, once the first round priority projects have been completed.

 

The Urban Growth Project Manager brought the report up to date by stating that the SAC s106 budget was expected to increase by circa £300,000 due to a recent request for developer contributions that were due. The budget would be confirmed in January 2014.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Urban Growth Project Manager said the following:

 

       i.                    Consultation on the improvements to the Cherry Hinton Recreation Ground will take place in November 2013 so that these can be delivered by Spring 2014 as planned. Specifications had been written for the skate board park project with the intention of procuring facilities in conjunction with Nun’s Way.

     ii.                    In terms of developer contribution funding of completed projects since 2007, Queen Ediths had received roughly £975,000, Trumpington £650,000 and Cherry Hinton £150,000. Cherry Hinton could also receive an additional £400,000 through the phase 2 Cherry Hinton Hall ground improvements.

   iii.                    Experience from the first round of the process had highlighted the possibility of grouping several small projects into a larger one.

   iv.                    The Community Development Team liaised with community groups so they would be aware of the information Officers required to present proposals to SAC.

    v.                    A consultation occurred over Summer 2013 to seek potential schemes for s106 funding.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

 

       i.          Sought parity between funding allocated to the 3 SAC Wards.

     ii.          Asked Officers to continue to liaise with community groups to support them as required, and request details on proposals (ie specifications on how funding would be spent) so SAC could make informed decisions on how to prioritise them. Officers were asked to ensure only appropriate proposals for s106 funding came forward for consideration at SAC, other proposals could be directed to different funding where applicable.

 

Following discussion, Members resolved (unanimously):

 

       i.          To short-list the following project ideas that the Area Committee would wish to consider in more detail in a follow-up report in January 2014:

·       (1) Refurbish centre at Cherry Hinton Baptist Church.

·       (6) Extend Trumpington Bowls Club Pavilion.

·       (13) Trim trail at Accordia plus (20) Junior scooter park for younger children at Accordia to be undertaken as a single project.

·       (21) New pavilion at Cherry Hinton Rec or improve the existing one (eg changing room non-slip floor)

·       (22) Basketball court or multi-use games area at Cherry Hinton Recreation Ground.

·       (23) New pavilion at Nightingale Avenue Rec.

     ii.          The Area Committee did not highlight:

·       There were project ideas that the Area Committee would wish to prioritise now, subject to project appraisal.

·       There were project ideas on the South Area list that should be referred to another (area or scrutiny) committee for consideration.

   iii.          Noted other comments and suggestions (not eligible for developer contributions funding) made as part of the recent consultation.