Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
Contact: Glenn Burgess Committee Manager
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies for absence Minutes: No apologies were received. |
|
Declarations of interest Members are asked to declare at this
stage any interests that they may have in an item shown on this agenda. If any
member of the Committee is unsure whether or not they should declare an
interest on a particular matter, they should seek advice from the Head of Legal
Services before the meeting.
Minutes: No declarations of interest were made. |
|
Public Questions Minutes: There were no public questions. |
|
Amendments to the Budget Setting Report February 2015 |
|
Executive Amendment PDF 165 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Matter for Decision The Head of Finance introduced the
Executive Amendment. The
Officer’s report detailed amendments to the Budget-Setting Report 2015/16 that
was recommended to Council by the Executive at its meeting on 22 January 2015. These
amendments include corrections and also reflect new or updated information that
has been received since that meeting and the consequent changes required. Unless
otherwise stated, any references in the recommendations to sections, pages and
appendices relate to Version 1 of the Budget Setting Report (BSR) 2015/16. Corrections and new or updated information: ·
Collection
Fund Deficit, Appendix B(e): Change to item NCL3740 - increasing the City Council’s
share of the projected year-end deficit from £24k to £60k (revised calculation
based on updated information), the additional £36k to be met from general fund
reserves in 2015/16. ·
Budget
Pressures, Appendix B(a): Inclusion of omitted item CF3672 £1m ·
Projects Under
Development (PUD) List, Appendix D(a):
Inclusion of omitted item UD016 Public Conveniences ·
City Deal: Change the “City Deal Infrastructure Investment
Fund” to “City Deal Investment and Delivery Fund” - the Council has
committed to pooling a proportion of gross NHB receipts with its local authority
partners to provide funding to enable delivery of City Deal objectives to
support and address the impacts of growth. The change in wording reflects
ongoing discussions on the use of this funding [pages 22, 24, 31 and 100 in
Appendix E refer]. Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and
Resources The Executive Councillor approved the amendments: i. Collection Fund Deficit: Change to item NCL3740 – increasing the City Council’s share of the projected year-end deficit from £24k to £60k, the additional £36k to be met from general fund reserves in 2015/16. ii. City Deal: · Change the “City Deal Infrastructure Investment Fund” to “City Deal Investment and Delivery Fund”. · To authorise the Section 151 officer to make necessary changes to the Budget Setting Report 2015/16, to be considered by Council at the meeting on 26 February 2015, to reflect the impact of changes for the above. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny Considerations The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 with 2 abstentions to endorse the
recommendations as set out in the Officer’s report. The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations. Councillor Smart joined the Committee after the decision was taken. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor
(and any Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|
Liberal Democrat Amendment PDF 1 MB Minutes: The Leader of the
Liberal Democrat Group introduced the item. The following
questions (Q) were put by Members on the items in the Liberal Democrat
Amendment and answered (A) as listed: Finance
i.
(Q) Would the amendment lead to higher spending?
(A) The purpose of 2015/16 Budget -
Bids & Savings – GF (P16 of Officer’s report) was to avoid higher net spend
2015 – 2020.
ii.
(Q) There appeared to be a conflict of information.
£97,500 spending increase was implied in Appendix [B(e) Non-Cash Limit] (P16), but tables later in the report
suggested a decrease. (A) Tables on P38 showed savings targets.
iii.
(Q) The amendment would
lead to an unsustainable budget and higher savings requirements in future. (A)
Again referred to tables on P38 showed savings targets. Labour and Liberal
Democrats both wished to make savings by 2020, each had their own spending
priorities. There were £2.471m of undefined savings.
iv.
Queried details of saving expectations in 2015/16 Budget - Bids & Savings – GF (P16
– 17). (A) Reducing the backlog in delivery would make the process more
efficient.
v.
(Q) Referred to 2015/16
Budget - Capital Bids – GF (P17), how would separating a small element of
highways project funding for City Council use, instead of the Joint Area
Committee, lead to efficiencies? (A) The intention was to decentralise some
funding to Area Committees so they could decide how to use it. The role of the
Joint Area Committee was different from the Area Joint Committee it replaces.
vi.
(Q) Queried reason for
abandoning introduction of self-service telephony and electronic enquiry
services 2015/16 Budget - Bids & Savings – GF (P16). (A) An automated and
complex self-service system did not provide the service people expected from
the Council. The Customer Service Centre was brought in to address this. Housing vii.
(Q) Queried housing sites expected to come forward.
(A) Sites in Council General Fund ownership ·
Mill Road Depot. ·
North West Cambridge. ·
Park Street Car Park. viii.
(Q) What is the average timescale to execute
housing projects and make potential sites available? (A) To be set out in
future for scrutiny by relevant committees. The timescales in Liberal Democrat
and Labour 2015 – 2016 budgets were similar. The Director of Environment said the Mill
Road Depot site should come free for housing by 2018. Three operational sites
needed to be released before the land as a whole could be released. A detailed
plan was being worked up regarding the timeframe. This was also dependent on
the Local Plan timetable. Three years seemed a realistic timeframe. Timeframes for making intermediate housing
sites available depended on particular site factors such as ensuring access and
undertaking consultation. Eighteen months to three years seemed a realistic
timeframe.
ix.
(Q) Requested clarity on how £450,000 of income would
be generated from housing sites in 2017 – 2018. (A) The income figures were
based on briefing details given by Officers. Councillor Bick undertook to share
the briefing information with The Executive to show the evidence base for
amendment figures. If sites were brought forward for use quickly, the Council would get the
income sooner.
x.
(Q) Sought clarity on how planning process could be
speeded up to bring more sites forward for development and build housing. (A) Undertake
due planning process faster ie in parallel not in series.
xi.
(Q) Why had the Liberal Democrats not undertaken
faster house building when they were in control of the Council? (A) A number of
factors had come into place recently such as some sites only now becoming
available. Community, Arts
and Recreation xii.
(Q) Were living wage sums appropriate? (A) The
premise of the amendment was to expect employers contracted by the Council to
pay a living wage. This would be paid for by contractors making operational
efficiencies. The situation would not be cost free, the Council would have to
negotiate with contractors. xiii.
(Q) Why should the Council subsidise contractors to
pay the living wage when they should be doing this already? (A) Some contracts
were put out to tender prior to the Council implementing its living wage
policy, therefore changes to contract terms would have to be negotiated (as a
moral expectation), not expected arbitrarily. New contracts would reflect
living wage expectations. xiv.
(Q) Were funding sources appropriate for Nightingale Recreation Ground Pavilion
refurbishment (P17)? (A) £400,000 was appropriate funding. The intention
was to re-instate the scheme in the Capital Plan. xv.
(Q) Was Jesus Green Pavilion sufficiently developed
to receive funding (P17)? Had appropriate consultation been undertaken
on the scheme? Should the scheme should be listed in
‘projects under development’ rather than the Capital Plan? (A) The project had
received funding for two years prior to removal from the Capital Plan. The intention
was to re-instate the scheme. Detailed consultation information was not set out
in the Capital Plan. xvi.
(Q) 2015/16 Budget - Bids
& Savings – GF (P16) set out tapering living wage costs. Please clarify
details. (A) Figures provided a platform/expectation that could be used for
future negotiation. Also for Lion Yard toilets and partnership work with the
Police. xvii.
(Q) Had Liberal Democrat
budget amendment figures 2015/16 Budget - Bids & Savings – GF (P16) been
drawn up in conjunction with advice from the Police in terms of their resource
expectations? Labour had liaised with third parties when in opposition. (A) The
budget amendment was Liberal Democrats saying that Labour had got its spending
priorities wrong. The Police need resources to assist the Council. xviii.
(Q) Would revealing that the Council was prepared
to negotiate on living wage terms and conditions (ie provide subsidies) weaken
its bargaining position? (A) No. xix.
(Q) Sought clarification regarding Deletion of
proposed cutback in Maternity Fund funding 2015/16 Budget - Bids & Savings – GF (P16). (A) Accept that saving
will be made here if they cannot be found elsewhere, but object to making
savings in the Maternity Fund on principle. |
|
Public Spaces Protection Order PDF 124 KB Report attached separately. Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision The report set out
the result of the officers’ review of potential areas for public spaces
protection orders proposed by the Area Committees and asked the Executive
Councillor to approve in principle the proposal to make a public spaces
protection order in respect of Mill Road Cemetery, Petersfield Green and the
front garden of Ditchburn Place; in the form set out at Appendix A of the
Officer’s report. Also to authorise officers to publicise the
proposed order and to consult. Decision of
the Leader
i.
Approved in principle the proposal
to make a public spaces protection order for Mill Road Cemetery, Petersfield
Green and the front garden of Ditchburn Place, Cambridge in the form set out at
Appendix A of the Officer’s report.
ii.
Authorised officers to publicise
the proposed order and to carry out consultation as required by the Anti-Social
Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014. 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 Communities Section Manager. The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
It was recognised that some areas of the city such
as Mill Road Cemetery were affected by anti-social drinking. The Council wished
to take steps to address this.
ii.
The PSPO was designed to stop anti-social street
drinking, not displace it by moving drinkers from one area to another. Liberal Democrat Councillors made the following comments in response to
the report:
i.
Sought clarification regarding the scope of the
PSPO, and if it would impact on people having social drinks in public, as well
as those who behaved in an anti-social way.
ii.
Asked how ‘anti-social drinking’ could be quantified
in a meaningful way. There were no specifications in the document on how the
Police should implement the power. An agreed protocol as discussed in proposals
for a Designated Public Places Order in 2006 would address this and ensure the
power was used with discretion. In response to Members’ questions the Leader said the following:
i.
The intention of the PSPO was to discourage
anti-social drinking in public places. It was not expected to stop people
having social drinks at picnics etc.
ii.
The power was not automatically available to the Police, it had to be given by the Council. This would
decentralise its use and enable Officers to make on the spot decisions on
whether to exercise the power or not. A Police Constable would have discretion
by not having a bureaucratic protocol in place, to be considered alongside any
other rules and regulations. The Leader undertook to liaise with the Police
regarding the PSPO implementation process. Labour Councillors did not think
there was a need for a usage protocol as the PSPO would not stop general
drinking, only anti-social street drinking.
iii.
The evidence base of need for a PSPO was set out in
P4 – 7 of the Officer’s report.
iv.
A PSPO was part of the range of options the Police
could use to stop anti-social drinking. Liberal Democrat Councillors requested a change
to the recommendations. Councillor Bick formally proposed to add the following
text (shown in bold) to recommendation 1 from the Officer’s report: To approve in principle the proposal to make a public spaces protection
order for Mill Road Cemetery, Petersfield Green and the front garden of
Ditchburn Place, Cambridge in the form set out at Appendix A subject to agreement with the Police on a
protocol defining situations where the power to enforce would be used, namely
in response to incidents of anti-social behaviour; On a show of hands the proposal was lost by 5
votes to 3. The Leader and Labour Councillors said the
amendment would delay the introduction of the PSPO and a protocol was not
needed as the PSPO and 2006 DPPO were two separate entities, and he had
arranged a meeting with the police to ask appropriate questions on
implementation. The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions to endorse the
recommendations as set out in the Officer’s report. The Leader 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. |
|
Procedural Item: Change to February 2016 Meeting Date Minutes: The Committee agreed they would like the Committee Manager to investigate if it were possible to move future February Committee meetings from Fridays to another eg Mondays or Thursdays. |