Issue - meetings

A public question had been submitted by Mrs Blair. As she was unable to attend the meeting the text of the question was circulated to the committee.

 

Mrs Blair’s question covered the following points:

 

        i.            The committee would be discussing and commenting on Best Practice on Consultation and Community Engagement immediately before discussing, in the absence of any consultation and engagement, two key aspects of the Localism Bill – The Community Right to Challenge and the Community Right to Bid.

      ii.            Questioned how the City Council proposed to manage the register and determine a response to nominations.

    iii.            The City Council appears to be agreeing its own processes without reference to the very stakeholders who would be submitting nominations or engagement with the communities they serve and who may wish to deliver services. This was inconsistent with the principles of effective consultation.

   iv.            Raised concern that, given the level of interest in this subject, no notice was given to those groups who had already enquired as to when City would be taking action.

     v.            Suggested that the committee defer the items to allow for a wider and more consultative approach to their consideration.

   vi.            Community Right to Bid appears to be an entirely reactive approach to community nominations.

 vii.            The tImescale needed to be longer than 5 years.

viii.            Decisions on social, amenity and community value should involve some member input either into the first decision or the appeal.

   ix.            An appendix to the Local Plan updated at least would be useful.

     x.            Raised concern that the annual window for Expressions of Interests was just before the summer break.

                  

The Head of Planning Services responded that the draft regulations did not allow the Council to nominate community assets. However it was appropriate for Local Authorities to assist local communities and share the Local Plan evidence base in the process of supporting community groups in the nomination process.  The council's website would be updated with details of how to put forward nominations ahead of when the legislation goes live and there would be information made available shortly including an article in 'Cambridge matters'.

 

It was noted that it was essential that the time scales were realistic and that full details of the delegations were included in the officers report when this comes back in October

 

The Head of Planning Services confirmed that, following the meeting, information would be made available for local communities and the relevant lists of community assets would be updated monthly on the City Councils website once the legislation had come into effect.

 

Matter for Decision: Using new community rights enabled under the Localism Act 2011, local community, voluntary bodies and parish councils will be able to identify land and buildings such as a Local shop, Local pub, Community center, Library, Swimming pool or Playground. These can then be nominated for inclusion on a list of assets maintained by the City Council. If an asset on the list comes up for sale, community groups will be able to trigger a pause for up to six months, in order to raise capital and bid to purchase the asset before it goes on to the open market.

 

Decision of the Leader:

 

The Leader resolved to:

 

          i.            Note the new requirements under the Localism Act.

 

        ii.            Agree the Council’s approach to this new duty as set out in the officer’s report.

 

      iii.            Delegate responsibility for determining whether assets are listed on the register of assets or not to a panel of three senior officers from Property Services, Planning and Community Development convened by the Head of Planning Services.

 

      iv.            Bring back a further report to the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee on 15 October 2012 to agree the Council’s final approach to this duty once Regulations had been published.

 

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

 

 Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Planning Services.

 

The committee made the following comments on the report:

 

        i.            Raised concern that, as a bid would have to come from a well-established and very well funded organisation, it may give false hope to local communities.

      ii.            Highlighted the difficulty in assessing the ‘community value’ of a piece of land or a building.

 

In response to member’s questions the Leader confirmed the following:

 

        i.            Acknowledged the difficulty in assessing ‘community value’ and noted that further guidance to ensure nationwide consistency would be beneficial.

      ii.            Proposed that a further report be brought back to the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee on 15 October 2012 to agree the Council’s final approach to this duty once Regulations had been published.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and approved the amended recommendations by 8 votes to 0 (unanimous).

 

The Leader approved the amended recommendations.