Agenda and minutes

Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chair used her discretion to alter the order of the agenda items. However, for ease of the reader, these minutes will follow the order of the agenda.

 

Apologies were received from Councillors Reiner, Baigent and Sarris. Councillors Richardson and Moore were present as alternates.

 

Councillor Reid left after the consideration of item 14/38/CS. Councillor Reid informed members of the public that the date of the meeting had changed and that this had caused diary conflicts for some Councillors.

 

Item Number	Name	Interest
14/42/CS	Councillor Austin	Personal: River user as a rower
14/40/CS	Councillor Austin	Personal: City Council appointed Observer to Junction Management Committee
14/40/CS	Councillor Reid	Personal: Trustee of Cambridge Literary Festival and Trustee of Close the Door, both of which are grant recipients

 

 

To approve the minutes of the meetings of 13^th March 2014 and 12th June 2014.

The minutes of the meetings of the 13^th March 2014 and the 12^th June 2014 were approved as correct records.

Public Speakers

 

Fiona Chapman

 

Fiona Chapman was unable to attend the meeting and the Chair read out the question on her behalf.

 

     i.        Concerned about lack of continuity of thinking re, Nature Conservation, eg why are elderberries bushes badly neglected, yet trees cut down.

    ii.        It is a serious waste of money to do Coe Fen and Sheeps Green conservation plan, then completely ignore its recommendations.

   iii.        As Folly area and opposite side of river being badly neglected, flooding not rectified.

  iv.        The Folly petition comments prove that Public want Folly restored.

   v.        Clarification on Folly area is needed, Land Registry states area only owned by Council since 2004. So it is not necessarily common land. As islands owned independently, and this area was originally an island.

 

The Green Space Manager responded to the questions and undertook to contact Ms Chapman after the meeting. He made the following points:

 

·        Elderflowers are a native species and seed and reproduce prolifically throughout the City often in inhospitable situations.  The examples that grow on Vicars Brook are old and in decline.

·        We regularly coppice elders on nature reserves as their flowers and fruits are a great food sources for insects and birds.

·        We formally inspect trees, so are aware of the ivy issue.  Our view is to retain ivy for its wildlife benefit were possible and only to remove if it is compromising the health or safety of the tree.

·        Hodson’s Folly: I recently discussed this with the Executive Councillor who is now aware.  I have instructed the cleaning off of the graffiti; however it would appear this has now returned.  I will ask our cleaning crews to revisit. 

·        At present Hodson’s Folly is not in our work programmes.  I am aware however aware of an online petition and I have had previous communications with Cambridge Past, Present and Future. I am more than happy to help with issues relating to maintenance of the Folly in its current state.

Any future plans or indeed projects for the Folly would be decided by the Executive Councillor.  I would recommend raising the Folly with local Councillors at Area Committees.  Area Committees can set their priorities for projects which then replicate into Officer work programmes

·        Paradise: This project is now complete and the boardwalk was the last item to be installed.  The site is well used and the new wetlands are establishing successfully.

·        Stourbridge Common Riverbank: The recent riverbank repairs where undertaken when a condition report showed the potential risk of failure of the existing river piling.   A range of options where considered and because of the rural feel of the common it was agreed to consider soft engineering solutions rather than the traditional steel sheet piles.  This soft engineering allowed us to create habitats for flora and fauna.      The contractors were tasked with reseeding the newly formed riverbank and the area disturbed during the works. I do agree that this has not been that successful and we will reseed this autumn as required.

          The temporary fence has now been removed and the thistles           will be cut, with the cattle returning to the common from July   to November.

          The pollarding of the two riverside willows is now complete      and I will ask them to return as the works to balance the     crowns of other the tree was to be undertaken at the same         time.

          The marginal planting along the new river bank is establishing well.

          Tree Management: I am happy to consider tree removal to      facilitate a project at Hodsons Folly but at the moment there          does not appear to be an agreed approach or solution.  I am certain that many people would also agree about the           importance of the site and its folly.   I am equally certain           there will many views expressed as to what to do with the     Folly.  Some would argue, leave it as it is and others who would express views about further roles the building could      take for the future.

 

 

Luther Phillips

 

Luther Phillips addressed the Committee regarding the Stourbridge Common Riverbank Works Extension item (14/38b/CS) and made the following points:

 

     i.        Questioned the safety of access to boats along the Stourbridge riverbank.

    ii.        Asked where boats would go once work was completed.

   iii.        Welcomed the work but requested the riverboats were taken into account.

 

The Chair reminded the Committee that this item was for information only and that the decision had already been agreed.

 

The Green Space Manager added clarity. Existing funding had allowed some riverbank work to be completed in this area. That work was now completed. Further works would follow once priorities had been set and relevant consultation completed. Safe entry and access points would be considered.

 

Public Speakers Minute Item 14/42/CS

Nine speakers addressed the committee regarding minute item 14/42/CS. Their comments are noted with the item below.

Committee Members to review and agree future meeting times for the Community Services Scrutiny Committee.

The Committee debated the start time of the meeting and questioned if a move to an evening slot would allow more members of the public to attend. It was suggested that the numbers attending was related to the interest in agenda items rather than the time of the meeting.

 

Councillor Reid proposed the slightly later start time of 14:30pm.

 

The Committee resolved to move to a 14:30 start time (by 6 vote to 0).

To note decisions taken by the Executive Councillors since the last meeting of the Community Services Scrutiny Committee. 

The decision was noted.

The decision was noted.

The decision was noted.

Matter for Decision

The report presented a summary of the 2013/14 outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for services within the Community Wellbeing portfolio, compared to the final budget for the year. The position for revenue and capital was reported and variances from budgets were highlighted, together with explanations. Requests to carry forward funding arising from certain budget underspends into 2014/15 were identified.

 

It was noted that outturn reports being presented in this Committee cycle reflected the reporting structures in place prior to the recent changes in Executive portfolios. In light of those changes (together with the requirement to report outturn on the basis of portfolios in place during 2013/14) Members of this Committee were asked to consider the proposals to carry forward budgets and make their views known to The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources, for consideration at Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee prior to his recommendations to Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community, Arts and Recreation

 

The Executive Councillor resolved:

 

     i.        to agree that the carry forward requests, totalling £94,000 as

          detailed in Appendix C of the Officer’s report, are to be   recommended to Council for approval; and

    ii.        to carry forward capital resources to fund rephased net capital spending of £452,000 from 2013/14 into 2014/15 as detailed in Appendix D 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 Committee received a report from the Principal Accountant regarding 2013/14 outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for services within the Community Wellbeing portfolio.

 

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

     i.        Sought clarification regarding requested carry forwards and overspends.

 

The Director of Customer and Community Services stated that the profile of the Arts and Recreation portfolio had been historically been problematic. Work was on-going to unpack staffing costs and income strands. She undertook to circulate detailed figures to the Committee after the meeting. However, she added that overall variances for were very good.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Matter for Decision

To agree new grant priorities and desired outcomes for Community, Arts and Recreation Development Grants to be used for assessing all future applications.

 

To agree the budget for Community, Arts and Recreation Development Grants from 2015/16.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community, Arts and Recreation

 

The Executive Councillor resolved:

 

     i.        to agree new priorities and outcomes for the Council’s Community, Arts and Recreation Development Grants as set out in Section 7, paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 of the Officer’s report;

    ii.        that, the 2015/16 budget for Community, Arts and Recreation Development Grants is provisionally set as £900,000 subject to confirmation as part of the 2015/16 budget round;

   iii.        that, once confirmed as part of the 2015/16 budget round, the budget for Community, Arts and Recreation Development Grants will be frozen at that level for a further two years (2016/17 and 2017/18);

  iv.        that the amount of the overall budget devolved to area committees for 2015/16 is provisionally set as £80,000 and distributed as set out in Section 7, paragraph 7.3c, subject to confirmation at Community Services Scrutiny Committee in January 2015; and

   v.        that the Community, Arts and Recreation Development Grants are renamed ‘Community Grants’.

 

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 Community Development regarding new grant priorities and desired outcomes for Community, Arts and Recreation Development Grants.

 

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

     i.        Expressed concerns that they were being asked to agree cuts without fully understanding the impact that would have on services.

     i.        Some members argued that the Junction was a special case and should be allowed extra time for new management structures to achieve results.

    ii.        Some members stated that the budget should not be agreed until all applications had been received.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Community Development said the following:

   iii.        The proposed priorities and outcomes will focus future grant funding on helping those residents who have the highest needs whether this is because of poverty or because they experience barriers due to equalities issues.

  iv.        No individual funding decisions are being requested today.

   v.        The Executive Councillor was being asked to agree future priorities and desired outcomes against which future applications would be assessed.

  vi.        Some voluntary sector groups and organisations would be well placed to deliver the desired outcomes while others might need to seek funding elsewhere if  they are unable to meet the proposed priorities and outcomes.

 vii.        Positive meetings had been held with groups representing the voluntary sector.

viii.        Consultation had suggested that an average 25% grant reduction was sustainable for most services.

  ix.        The Junction was in year three of a three year agreement. There is currently no agreement to fund the Junction beyond 2014/15. This would be dependent upon the Junction’s grant application which would be assessed against the proposed priorities and outcomes in the same way as applications from all other voluntary sector groups and organisations.

 

Councillor Reid stated that setting a budget cut ahead of budget setting decision was premature. She stated that further information was needed to allow proper debate and proposed the following amendment to the recommendations (delete wording struck through and insert the underlined):

 

     i.        To agree new priorities and outcomes for the Council’s Community, Arts and Recreation Development Grants as set out in Section 7, paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2 of the Officer’s report;

 

    ii.        That a decision as to the future funding of the Junction is made after a  review by CSSC of the Junction's viability; 

 

   iii.        That, the 2015/16 budget for Community, Arts and Recreation Development Grants is provisionally set as £900,000 subject to confirmation as part of the 2015/16 budget round;   

 

  iv.        That the 2015/16 budget for Community Arts and Recreation Grants is set at a level which will protect services for those with high needs, the level  to be ascertained following the grant application round;

 

   v.        That, once confirmed as part of the 2015/16 budget round, the budget for Community, Arts and Recreation Development Grants will be frozen at that level for a further two years (2016/17 and 2017/18);

 

  vi.        That the amount of the overall budget devolved to area committees for 2015/16 is provisionally set as £80,000 and distributed as set out in Section 7, paragraph 7.3c, subject to confirmation at Community Services Scrutiny Committee in January 2015; and

 

 vii.        That the Community, Arts and Recreation Development Grants are renamed ‘Community Grants’.

 

The Director of Customer and Community Services stated that this process had built in a long lead in time to allow clarity and stability for the sector

 

Councillor Reid requested that her amendment be considered in two stages amended recommendations i and ii, followed by amended recommendations iii to vii.

 

On a show of hands amended recommendations i and ii were lost by 4 votes to 3.

On a show of hands amended recommendations iii to vii were lost by 4 votes to 3.

 

Councillor Reid requested that the substantive recommendations be considered individually.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendation i.

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 3 to endorse the recommendation ii.

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendation iii.

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendation iv.

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendation v.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

Matter for Decision

The report presented a summary of the 2013/14 outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for services within the Public Places portfolio, compared to the final budget for the year. The position for revenue and capital is reported and variances from budgets were highlighted, together with explanations. Requests to carry forward funding arising from certain budget underspends into 2014/15, and future years where relevant, were identified.

 

It was noted that outturn reports being presented in this Committee cycle reflect the reporting structures in place prior to the recent changes in Executive portfolios. In light of those changes (together with the requirement to report outturn on the basis of portfolios in place during 2013/14) members of this committee were asked to consider the proposals to carry forward budgets and make their views known to The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources, for consideration at Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee prior to his recommendations to Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places

 

The Executive Councillor resolved:

     i.        to agree the carry forward requests, totalling £1,980 as detailed in Appendix C of the Officer’s report are to be recommended to Council for approval; and

    ii.        to carry forward capital resources to fund rephased net capital spending of £820,000 from 2013/14 into 2014/15 as detailed in Addendix D 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 Committee received a report from the Principal Accountant regarding the summary of the 2013/14 outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for services within the Public Places portfolio.

 

The Committee sought clarification regarding overspends and requested more information on this matter in future reports.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Interim Head of Services, Streets and Open Spaces stated that some costs related to Environmental Improvement Projects were difficult to predict and were unrecoverable on some projects.

 

The Principal Accountant undertook to provide more information to Councillor Robertson outside the meeting.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places welcomed the members of the public who had attended to speak on this item.

 

Public Speakers

 

Amy Spencer

Amy Spencer addressed the Committee regarding Riverside Moorings and made the following points:

     i.        Some boats are used as permanent homes while others are kept for leisure use.

    ii.        Will consideration be given to those who might become homeless if they lost their mooring place?

 

The Green Space Manager stated that records were keep of when a boat moved onto the river. The next stage of the process would be to establish tenure types.

 

Amy Spencer asked the following supplementary question.

Once tenure is established, will the subsequent treatment of the boater be different?

 

The Green Space Manager confirmed that those who could establish the boat as their sole residency would be placed on the regulation list.

 

Amy Alys Tillson

Amy Alys Tillson addressed the Committee regarding Riverside Moorings and made the following points:

     i.        Has a residential mooring.

    ii.        Welcomes the work that Officers have done on this matter.

   iii.        Enforcement would be needed as some people would be penalised as they had followed the correct waiting list procedures.

  iv.        The process needs to be fair.

   v.        Turnover of spaces also needs to be improved.

 

The Executive Councillor thanked Ms Tillson for the work she had done and assured her that Riverside mooring would not jump the waiting list. The cut off point for regulated moorings would be the start of this meeting. Enforcement would be needed to ensure new boats did not move onto future gaps when other boats moved on.

 

Lynette Gilbert

Lynette Gilbert addressed the Committee regarding Riverside Moorings and made the following points:

     i.        Local residents welcomed attractive and well maintained boats.

    ii.        Residents want quiet enjoyment of their homes.

   iii.        Noise and fumes can be a problem.

  iv.        Derelict boats and rubbish mar the area.

   v.        Residents would like: enforcement of regulation, prevention of new boats and action to stop railing moorings being a revolving door. 

  vi.        Weekend and derelict boats should be removed.

 vii.        The report is unclear of future numbers.

viii.        All options should be explored.

 

The Executive Councillor stated that she understood residents concerns. Housing in the area was very close to the railings. Removal of graffiti and a general tidy up of the area had been undertaken. The next step would be to stop new boats moving onto the railings. The wider strategy for the future would be work with all sectors of the community to improve the area.

 

Lynette Gilbert read a statement on behalf of Suzi Shimwell

     i.        Health and environmental concerns need to be addressed.

    ii.        Boats discharge sewage into the river.

   iii.        Pollution and rubbish is a problem.

  iv.        Boaters repair boats in the area leading to pollution.

   v.        The river is a green space for all to enjoy but large areas have boats blocking the entire river frontage.

  vi.        The river is narrow in places.

 vii.        Moored boats block safety chains needed by rowers.

 

The Executive Councillor stated that regulated mooring would address many of these issues. Sewage concerns would be addressed as all boats would need to be capable of moving to the pumping station. Issues related to smoke and noise would be addressed in future. Quality of life for all residents was the long term goal. Mooring licences could be examined in future to see if repairing boats in the river could be addressed.

 

Gemma Pilmer

Gemma Pilmer addressed the Committee regarding Riverside Moorings and made the following points:

 

     i.        Will regulatory moorings be a temporary fix or a permanent solution?

    ii.        Will the moorings become secure?

   iii.        Can existing boaters remain where they are until they come up on the waiting list?

 

The Executive Councillor stated that she could not promise that boaters would not be asked to move. However, when added to the regulatory moorings list, there would be some security.

 

Tom Crawley

Tom Crawley addressed the Committee regarding Riverside Moorings and made the following points:

 

     i.        The Riverside area is not suitable for moorings.

    ii.        There is a safety impact.

   iii.        Railings are against the road.

  iv.        Loading, in particular gas bottles, over railings is unsafe.

   v.        Blocks access to safety chains for rowers.

  vi.        Adding a pontoon would be a high cost solution for little return in terms of additional spaces.

 vii.        This committee is about community issues not housing

viii.        Attention given to moorings, such as painting the railings, is poor value for money.

 

The Executive Councillor stated that the pontoon suggestion had been deferred as this was not the best use on funds. She agreed that the area was not great for moorings and that safety issues needed further investigation. No decision would be made about paining the railings at this stage.

 

Tom Crawley stated that he had only raised the painting issue to illustrate the cost involved with the mooring issue.

 

Ivan MacTaggart

Ivan MacTaggart addressed the Committee regarding Riverside Moorings and made the following points:

 

     i.        Lives in a house in Riverside and want to make it clear boaters and non-boaters get along.

    ii.        However, all residents object to poor quality boats.

   iii.        The revised policy should consider Riverside as a special case.

  iv.        Pontoon costs represent poor value for money.

   v.        Residency dates should apply from today.

  vi.        Riverside is a special case.

 vii.        How does today’s proposal impact on the wider vision for the area.

 

The Executive Councillor stated that she appreciated concerns over derelict boats and hoped to see them removed very soon. Boaters pay Council Tax and are part of the community. The vision for Riverside is wider that the City. Cross authority work will be needed on joint issues.

 

Ivan MacTaggart asked what action would be taken on the long term vision.

 

The Executive Councillor stated that further consultation, including cross authority, would follow regarding time frames for the next steps.

 

Luther Phillips

Luther Phillips addressed the Committee regarding Riverside Moorings and made the following points:

 

     i.        Feels reassured by debate today.

    ii.        Safety is a key issue.

   iii.        Mooring should be limited.

  iv.        A pontoon would be poor value for money.

   v.        The Local Plan includes a marina and this should be built.

  vi.        Remove right to remain from non-resident boaters.

 

The Executive Councillor stated that the cost of a marina would be prohibitive. This cannot be delivered in the short term. However, a joint venture with South Cambs had not been ruled out long term.

 

Luther Phillips asked what would happen once legitimate boaters had been identified. Would other boats be moved on?

 

The Executive Councillor confirmed that once numbers were established future possibilities could be explored.

 

Kirsty McMullen

Kirsty McMullen addressed the Committee regarding Riverside Moorings and made the following points:

 

     i.        Has been reassured by the discussions.

    ii.        Riverside residents welcome boaters as part of the community.

   iii.        Is not concerned if boats are pretty or not.

  iv.        Derelict boats should be removed and By-law 11 could be used to enforce the removal of unlicensed boats.

   v.        A compromise is needed to allow existing users to stay.

 

The Executive Councillor stated that the report should kick start better community relations. Action has been lacking on derelict boats for some years. Enforcement is needed and all options would be explored.

 

Kirsty McMullen stated that she was encouraged by the comments.

 

Matter for Decision

The report summarised the outcomes of a feasibility study commissioned in the Spring of 2014 to explore options for the adaptations of the river wall and railings to facilitate river boat moorings at Riverside. 

 

The report recommended the continued investigation of the creating of mooring positions; coupled with the introduction of regulation of moorings at Riverside as an interim solution to overcome some of concerns raised by stakeholders and local residents.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places

 

The Executive Councillor resolved:

 

     i.        to instruct Officers to continue to develop option 2 of the Officer’s report, as detailed at 3.4 of the Officer’s report. To prepare a full project appraisal of allowing Riverside to be incorporated into the City Council’s River Moorings Policy, including whether or not adaptations can be made to Riverside;

    ii.        to instruct Officers not to pursue option 3 detailed at 3.4 of the Officer’s report;

   iii.        to instruct Officers to regulate moorings at Riverside from the 1^st October 2014; and

  iv.        to instruct Officers to facilitate those currently moored on Riverside to be given the opportunity to join the River Moorings Waiting List in chronological order where the period of first occupancy can be evidenced.

 

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 Green Space Manager regarding a feasibility study commissioned in the Spring of 2014 to explore options for the adaptations of the river wall and railings to facilitate river boat moorings at Riverside.

 

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

     i.        The needs of rowers should be taken into account.

    ii.        Welcomed the comments from the public.

   iii.        Safety issues should be addressed.

 

The Executive Councillor undertook to work with the Cam Conservators regarding safety issues.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

Matter for Decision

The framework agreement for tree maintenance services expires at the end of April 2015.  Officers were seeking permission to commence a formal tender process for the provision of tree maintenance services for a period of 2 years from 1 May 2015.

 

A new two year framework agreement (which would run until April 2017) would allow Officers to properly explore further, longer term collaborative opportunities across the whole County, with an aspiration for a County wide framework agreement, for the period 2017 onwards. 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places

 

The Executive Councillor resolved:

 

     i.        to authorise the Head of Streets and Open Spaces to invite and evaluate tenders for contractors to provide tree maintenance services for 2015 to 2017;

 

    ii.        to authorise the Director of Environment to award the contract(s) to the most favourable tender(s), in accordance with pre-determined evaluation criteria; and

 

   iii.        to instruct Officers to explore longer term collaborative opportunities with an aspiration for a County wide framework agreement, for the period 2017 onwards.

 

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 Green Space Manager regarding tree maintenance services.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

Matter for Decision

At its meeting on February 27, 2014, Council agreed to create a programme to improve selected local centres in the city.  The program would run from the 2014/15 financial year and include a total budget of £635,000.00 to 2017/18.  At least three projects would be undertaken for completion by 2018/19).  The purpose of the report was to set out the planning policy background to local centres; proposed criteria in the selection of projects; and expected approval and consultation arrangements for the programme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places

 

The Executive Councillor resolved:

 

     i.        to approve the proposed approach to the Local Centres Improvement Programme for the years 2014 to 2020 as set out in the Officer’s report, specifically:

a)           the audit criteria and approach to the selection of local centres;

b)           the need for a report back to the October 2014 meeting of the Customer and Community Services Committee with the outcomes and recommendations from the local centres audit and selection process; and

c)           the creation of a Project Board to oversee the projects once agreed by the Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places

 

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 Urban Design and Conservation Manager.

 

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

     i.        Expressed disappointment that more could not be done for Mitcham’s Corner.

    ii.        Members praised the work done by the Friends of Mitcham’s Corner and expressed the hope that the gyratory system could be removed.

   iii.        Councillor Robertson requested an amendment to the report to reflect the fact that the station area included parts of Petersfield and not just Trumpington.

 

The Executive Councillor stated that the importance of Mitcham’s Corner had been recognised, A Chesterton co-ordinator would be appointed and a sensible, long-term approach could be agreed including investigation of funding options.

 

The Urban Design and Conservation Manager stated that work was on-going with the County Council and spending money on short term window dressing would be poor value for money. He suggested that Members might wish to consider a two centre plan in October, with the option of holding funding for a third centre, Mitcham’s Corner, for the future.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

Matter for Decision

Cambridge City Council is currently working on the development of a comprehensive management plan for Coldham’s Common, to ensure that the site continues to benefit future generations.

 

Officers have used national guidance relating to community engagement on the management of Common land. 

 

An initial consultation has been undertaken to identify and collect the views of all stakeholders and respondents. 

 

A further consultation is now proposed detailing Issues and Options for consideration.  It is intended to allow opportunities for greater narrative and expression of interest to reach broad consensus on a range of management options.

 

The subsequent management plan will be consider for adoption by Community Services Scrutiny Committee in the autumn. 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places

 

The Executive Councillor resolved:

 

     i.        to approve the content and publications of the Issues and Options paper for consultation detailed at Appendix A of the Officer’s report; and

    ii.        to instruct Officers to draft a Management Plan for Coldhams Common based on the outcomes of consultations; for future consideration by Scrutiny Committee.

 

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 Green Space Manager regarding a comprehensive management plan for Coldham’s Common.

 

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

     i.        Consultaion would need to take into account the wider community who were also users of the Common.

    ii.        The consultation should allow a rich picture of how the Common was used to be developed.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

 

The Chair reminded the Committee that some of the appendices to the report were confidential and that if they were minded to discuss matter in those documents, it would be necessary to consider excluding the press and public.

 

The Committee resolved to discuss the report in open session.

 

Matter for Decision

The report considered future service delivery options for Bereavement Services in Cambridge, in the context of the Councils strategic objectives and its savings targets. A set of key principles for the design of the service and relevant financial objectives were set out.

 

Different organisational changes were considered, ranging from ‘no change’ to the current operational model to outright disposal of the service. It is proposed that moving the service onto a trading account and introducing a pricing strategy will best meet the Council’s financial and policy objectives.   On the basis of this recommendation a detailed business case will be developed, for further consideration and approval in the next budget round.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places

 

The Executive Councillor resolved:

 

     i.        to consider the options set out in the report and the financial projections for the service;

    ii.        to approve in principle, on the basis of the outline business case, a proposal for bereavement services that moves the service onto a trading account, in which surpluses over and above the required return to the General Fund can be ring-fenced for reinvestment in the service infrastructure; and

   iii.        to approve the development of a detailed pricing strategy and coherent plan that will be brought back to members to consider in October 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 Head of Specialist Services.

 

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

     i.        Expressed concern that ring fencing funding could result in a shortfall in the future.

    ii.        Suggested that the services would need to evolve in future.

   iii.        Suggested that predicting future death rates was problematic.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Specialist Services stated that:

 

     i.        The service would need to become more business focused in future.

    ii.        Ring fencing of funding could be reversed in future if circumstances changed.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.