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: James Goddard Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Sarris, Baigent and Reid. Councillors Benstead and Holt attended as Alternative Members. |
|||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||
To approve the minutes of the meeting on 14 January 2016. Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2016 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendment: 16/50/Comm Declarations of Interest Councillor O’Connell’s partner, not Councillor O’Connell, was a Trustee
of Encompass Network. |
|||||||
Public Questions 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. Members of the public asked a number of questions regarding river
moorings (minute item 16/69/Comm), as set out below. 1. A member of the public raised the following points: i.
Expressed concern that
a private company would be responsible for operating the fines system. ii.
Expressed concern
that visitors may park in resident’s moorings and so force them into other
areas where they may be fined for illegally parking. iii.
Asked that
homes/boats were not treated like cars. iv.
Expressed concern
that demand for moorings may exceed supply. The Executive Councillor for City Centre and
Public Places responded: i.
Contract law wouldn’t be
implemented retrospectively. ii.
The proposed 6 hour visitor
mooring time limit had been discounted as an option. iii.
Council staff would be responsible
for imposing fines, this service would not be
outsourced. iv.
People with mooring licenses would
not be subject to fines. The Streets and Open Spaces Development
Manager said that contract law would enable officers to move visitors from
residents’ moorings. 2. A member of the public felt his lifestyle was under
threat from mooring charges as he was concerned he would no longer afford to
live on the river. The Executive Councillor for City Centre and
Public Places responded: i.
Reiterated that mooring fines were
not aimed at licensed boats. ii.
Said that all issues would be
reviewed in the mooring policy paper coming to Community Services Scrutiny
Committee in summer 2016. The Streets and Open Spaces Development
Manager said that Central Government guidance was expected in future regarding
low income families. 3. Mr Bristor raised the following points: i.
He had signed a
moorings contract. ii.
Living on the river
was a lifestyle choice. ·
The cost of living
on the river was increasing. ·
Expressed concern
that he would be arbitrarily moved on from moorings. iii.
Queried who would be
affected by contract law. iv.
There was no formal
retraction of notices asking people to move their boats although the notices
had been superseded. The Executive Councillor for City Centre and
Public Places responded: i.
She was working with Cam Boaters
to liaise with the boating community. ii.
There was no intention to move
existing boating community members from their current moorings. The intention
was to bring in a policy that would apply in future. A regulatory measure was
needed to protect long term mooring occupiers. 4. Ms Hurst raised the following points: i.
Referred to the Moorings Civil Contract
Law Approach addendum and said this had been published very close to the date
of the committee. ii.
Stated the moorings
consultation period was not long enough. iii.
Hoped the City
Council, Cam Boaters and Cam Conservators continued to work in partnership. iv.
Vulnerable moorings
users needed to be safeguarded. v.
Asked for
confirmation that visitors would not be allowed to moor in residential
moorings. vi.
Asked for
confirmation that contract based enforcement would not be used on residential
moorings. vii.
Queried if safeguards
would be written into the residential licence agreement in case residents were
forced to park in visitor moorings due to a lack of space. The Executive Councillor for City Centre and
Public Places responded: i.
Undertook to work with Cam Boaters
in future. ii.
The addendum was published late
due to technical reasons. A number of late responses were received to the
Contract Law Model Consultation, these did not change the recommendations, but
it was thought best to publish them. iii.
Licensed and existing residents’
boats would be excluded from fines even if signs on the river did not
explicitly say this. iv.
Enforcement action could be taken
against visitors illegally mooring in residential areas through fines if the
officer recommendations were agreed later in committee. The Streets and Open Spaces Development
Manager said contract law was intended to stop visitors using residential
moorings. The City Council had a duty of care before taking enforcement action.
If the officer recommendations were agreed later in committee then the Streets
and Open Spaces Development Manager would look to amend the residential licence
agreement and signage to clarify who would be affected by fines. 5. Mr Ukarnis raised the following points: i.
Visitors were not
given enough time to moor in the city and visit it. ii.
Penalty payments
would discourage people from using moorings. iii.
The river could
attract visitors to the city. The Executive Councillor for City Centre and
Public Places responded: i.
A major problem was the backlog of
boats in the wrong moorings. This would be addressed through the evictions
process, which would take time. ii.
Contract law would be more of a
deterrent as action could be taken faster. However, it would not be
retrospective. The Streets and Open Spaces Development
Manager said visitors could stay in their moorings for 48 hours. There was no
clear support or objection to this from the consultation, so the proposal was
left unchanged. It could be reviewed in future. 6. Councillor Sinnott referred to a written statement
from Mr Tidy circulated to the Committee. She asked for a definition of
reasonable condition that boats needed to be kept in (on behalf of Mr Tidy). The Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager
referred to P2 of his report. A boat was considered to be in reasonable
condition if it was safe and well maintained. It was part of the licence
requirement to get a boat safety certificate. This did not cover aesthetics. 7.
The Committee
noted written statements regarding river moorings from Ms Tillson and a
Cambridge resident. 8.
Councillor Gillespie
raised the following points:
i.
Expressed concern regarding the consultation process and
because the EQiA was only provided the night before Committee.
ii.
The
impact of the Moorings policy on the boating community needed to be considered. iii.
Asked
for a guarantee that a Public Space Protection Order would not be used on
boaters. The Executive Councillor for City Centre and
Public Places reiterated that contract law would not affect the existing
boating community or be applied retrospectively. |
|||||||
2015/16 S106 Priority-Setting Round: Follow-Up Report PDF 433 KB Minutes: Matter for
Decision Following on from
the 2015/16 S106 priority-setting report to this Committee last October, the
Officer’s latest report identified further needs and opportunities for
allocating S106 contributions to strategic sports and community facility
projects before the next round. Two new eligible
proposals had come forward in recent months which were ready to be considered
now and would give the Council more room for manoeuvre to ensure that S106
contributions, due to expire before the end of 2017, are used on time. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Communities
i.
Allocated up to £250,000 of
strategic S106 outdoor sports funding as a grant to Camrowers for a joint
project with Cambridgeshire Rowing Association to build a new community
boathouse on the River Cam, subject to business case approval and community use
agreement.
ii.
Allocated up to £25,000 of
strategic S106 community facilities funding for equipping the new community
centre on the Darwin Green development in Cambridge, subject to business case
approval. 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 Growth Project Manager. In response to Members’ questions the Urban
Growth Project Manager and Sport & Recreation Manager said the
following:
i.
Camrowers were allocated to use the boat house
morning and evening.
ii.
Use of the boat house was split between Camrowers
and clubs associated with the Cambridgeshire Rowing Association. Part of the
community use agreement stipulated space allocation as 60% general and 40%
Camrowers.
iii.
The City Council was working with Camrowers to
provide a boat for disabled people’s use. The Council had funded 2 adapted
boats in 2015.
iv.
Rowing was being promoted to males and females of
all ages through Camrowers. This requirement would be put into the Community
Use Agreement over time. The Committee unanimously resolved 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. |
|||||||
General & Sunday Market Rent & Terms of Trading Review PDF 263 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Public Questions Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below. 1. Mr Rice raised the following points: i.
A lot of rubbish in
the market square area was caused by non-market traders, but they were charged
for the clean up. ii.
There were insufficient
facilities (eg gas) for food sellers at present. These should be improved
before increased market stall charges were considered. iii.
Equality and
fairness were important policy considerations. Suggested a clumsy one size fits
all approach policy was proposed. Cold food sellers were not charged the same
amount of fees as hot food sellers. The Executive Councillor for City Centre and
Public Places responded: i.
The intention was to streamline
and simplify a complicated pricing process with a more uniform approach. ii.
Cleaning costs were part of the
charge for market stall rent to hot food sellers, regardless of who caused the
mess. The Head of Streets and Open Spaces
responded:
i.
There was a noticeable increase in electricity
costs in the last few years, which was reflected in charges to stallholders.
ii.
Recommended charges were now in-line with other
city markets.
iii.
Cold food stalls were already charged for area
cleaning as well as hot food sellers. Under the recommended changes, hot food
sellers would pay an additional surcharge. 2. Mr Bernard raised the following points: i.
It was unfair to
increase charges to all stallholders for area cleansing. People who caused any
mess should be charged more. ii.
Took issue with the
proposed charges, they would make it unprofitable to have a stall due to the
high levels of competition (people would go elsewhere if the market became too
expensive). The Head of Streets and Open Spaces
responded: i.
The intention was to attribute
costs fairly. ii.
The aim of the review was to
simplify a 3 tier tariff into 2: premium and standard. iii.
There was no differentiation
between corner and perimeter stalls, both were premium. iv.
The market was a popular venue.
There was high demand for stalls and high occupancy of these due to high
visitor numbers. v.
The Council was reviewing market
cleanliness and how to keep it so in future. vi.
The Council supported traders
through training and promotion. It was keen to promote the market. The Executive Councillor for City Centre and
Public Places added that some market traders would be hit harder than others by
the increased charges, but this should only be a minority. It was hoped the
price structure would assist the majority. 3. A market trader raised the following points: i.
Took issue with the
proposed increased charges. ii.
Traders had to
provide their own facilities. iii.
People booked week
day slots just so they could get weekend slots which were more profitable.
(Council policy only allowed people to book whole weeks). This meant that
stalls were empty during the week. The Executive Councillor for City Centre and
Public Places responded: i.
Proposed charges were benchmarked
to be in-line with other markets across the country. ii.
Referred to P57 of the Officer’s
report. Cambridge market costs were in-line with, sometimes cheaper than, other
markets including smaller town ones. The Head of Streets and Open Spaces responded:
i.
The Council tried to spread different types of
stalls across the market, but people would be given a specific site upon
request.
ii.
Officers had to be mindful of the impact of food
stalls on others eg food smells on clothing stalls.
iii.
The Council had a duty of care regarding the market
and would look into the impact of siting stalls to ensure that fire regulations
were complied with. 4. Councillor Gillespie raised the following points: i.
Asked that Member’s
did not accept recommendations in the Officer’s report. Expressed concern that
traders may lose their livelihood through increased charges. ii.
The market place had
been neglected for decades. Members now had a chance to do something positive by
investing funding raised through fees back into the market. iii.
Traders had little
confidence in support offered by Officers. iv.
Traders had to clear
up stall areas themselves. v.
Expressed concern
over health and safety in the market area due to uneven cobblestones. vi.
Occupancy number
were based on bookings not stall use. Stalls may be unused during the week so
traders could get a weekend slot. The two should be separated, current
regulations were unfair. vii.
Suggested
implementing incubator stalls to facilitate growth. viii.
Took issue with the
propose fees and charges. ix.
The City Council
should use the market as an income stream, but fairly. The Executive Councillor for City Centre and
Public Places responded: i.
Officers had liaised with
Cambridge Past Present & Future about the market. ii.
Uneven paving was the Highways
Authority’s responsibility. iii.
The City Council did not have the
resources to renovate the market area at present. iv.
Actions to ensure the market was
healthy in the short term: ·
Bringing fees in-line with other
markets across the country. ·
Working with Cambridge BID to see
how to invest in the market. The Head of Streets and Open Spaces
said that various officers were providing support to traders. They actively
promoted the market and visited it every day. Expressed concern that traders
did not feel supported and undertook to follow this up. The
Director of Environment said the market was an asset for the city. The
intention was to co-ordinate cleansing and market support services. The market
was cleansed early on a daily basis. Matter for
Decision The Officer’s
report followed a LEAN process review of the markets administrative procedures
and the supporting financial reconciliation function as part of the Support
Services Review. The recommendations were supported by the outcome of a
benchmarking exercise to compare the offer of Cambridge markets with that of
similar regional and national operators and would bring city charges up to
parity. Decision
of Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places Agreed to:
i.
Adopt a dual premium/standard
stall fee structure over all days to replace current multiple or flat rent
structure.
ii.
Harmonise charges to bring Sunday
rent in line with fees levied on Saturdays.
iii.
Adopt a £7 per pitch premium for
traders licenced to sell hot food.
iv.
Adopt a £5 per pitch premium for
traders operating on days not licenced.
v.
A 4% rebate to all traders that
pay by direct debit and are trading at financial year end.
vi.
Withdraw credit of two weeks
absence charges (holiday entitlement). vii.
Adopt rental charges as outlined
in section 3.13 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 Head of Streets and Open Spaces on behalf of the Markets & Street
Trading Development Manager. The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
A diverse market was a
healthy market ie not limited to 1 – 2 stall types.
ii.
A lot of rubbish in the market square was caused by
revellers not stall holders. Hoped that Officers would liaise with traders to
address issues. An unclean market square caused a (poor) reputation issue for
the Council. In response to Members’ questions the Executive Councillor for City
Centre and Public Places said the following:
i.
Demand for stalls was
higher than supply.
ii.
Cambridge BID was
working with traders regarding market area cleaning. This would be included in
the 5 year plan in future. In response to Members’ questions the Head of Streets and Open Spaces said the following:
i.
Undertook to check if market traders were offered
an exit interview. Would implement one if not.
ii.
The intention was to simplify the pricing
structure. It would be reviewed on an annual basis in future to ensure it was
fit for purpose. The Director of
Environment said there was no conflict of interest between (independent)
environmental health operatives and street cleaning operatives. The Committee resolved by 4 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. |
|||||||
S106 Developer Contributions: Taking Stock PDF 72 KB Minutes: Matter for
Decision A report to this
Committee March 2015 highlighted significant changes arising from restrictions
(from April 2015) on the use of future S106 contributions. New ones had to be
for specific projects and no more than five of these could be used/pooled for
any particular project. An interim
approach to seeking new, specific S106 contributions was agreed and introduced
last June. This anticipated a gradual build-up in securing new S106 funding
alongside a need to strengthen the evidence base for justifying specific
developer contributions. A review of the interim approach in early 2016 was
requested – and this was the focus of the report for this item. The Council may
need to continue the interim approach for another year (at least) before the
CIL system can be implemented locally. The interim
approach for new, specific contributions also needed to be viewed alongside the
use of existing, generic S106 funds. In the last six months, over £2 million had
been allocated to new priority projects. Overall, the
availability of generic S106 funding was tapering off and running down. Decision
of Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public
Places
i.
Agreed that the Council’s interim
approach should now focus on seeking specific S106 contributions: a)
primarily from appropriate major developments
for projects relating to specific open spaces, community facilities and indoor
and outdoor sports facilities; b)
from both major and minor developments,
as appropriate, for specific play area projects;
ii.
Approved the ‘target lists’ of
possible specific play area and open space projects as a starting point for
seeking new S106 contributions from planning approvals in 2016/17 as set out in
Appendices B and C;
iii.
Noted the other improvements to
make the interim approach to seeking specific S106 contributions simpler and
more effective (see paragraphs 4.5 – 4.14 in 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 Urban Growth Project Manager. In response to Members’ questions the Urban Growth Project Manager said
the following:
i.
Specific S106 contributions could only be entered
into for mitigating the impact of particular developments at nearby facilities,
where a case could be made (backed up by audit findings and other evidence)
that this was necessary. For this reason, specific contributions would not be
evenly spread across the city. This explains why the target lists of play areas
and open spaces for which specific S106 contributions could be sought did not
cover facilities in all wards.
ii.
S106 developer contributions were used to mitigate
the impact of developments, not address areas of deprivation.
iii.
Whilst target lists of facilities for which S106
specific contributions could be sought were a starting point for negotiation.
Specific contributions for other facilities may also be considered if it can be
demonstrated that there is a strong need to mitigate the impact of a particular
nearby development.. The Executive Councillor for City Centre and
Public Places added that the Outdoor Play Investment Strategy would be a way to
implement play area improvements through funding separate to specific S106
contributions.
iv.
Alongside the arrangements for specific S106
contributions, the council still had some generic S106 contributions (from S106
agreements entered into before 6/4/2015), albeit that this funding availability
is tapering off and running down. The next S106 priority-setting round would be
in 2016/17. Officers would bring a report on the arrangements for this
priority-setting round to the committee
in June or September 2016. The Committee unanimously resolved 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. |
|||||||
Coldhams' Common Management Plan PDF 204 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Public Question A member of the public asked a question as set out below. 1. Mr Smith raised the following points: i.
Referred to barbed
wire on Coldham’s Common (P126 of the Officer’s report). This prevented access and
was a danger to animals. Requested it be removed. ii.
Referred to a
written statement submitted by Ms White, Vice Chair of Friends of Coldham’s
Common. Queried if there had been adequate consultation on the Coldham’s Common
Management Plan. Also, what was the timeframe for action? The Senior Asset Development Officer said the wire was due for removal
through the Management Plan, but there was a legal challenge on one section of
the fence. The Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places said the
intention was to minimise the amount of wire on the Common and its removal
would be a priority for action. The Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager said recommendations in
the Officer’s report would lead to dialogue then action if approved. The Management
Plan would be reviewed after a year then brought back to committee if there
were any issues. Matter for
Decision Coldham’s Common
is one of the largest open spaces in Cambridge; it is widely used by people for
a variety of different activities and is important for its natural habitats and
the biodiversity they support. Cambridge City Council oversaw the management of
the common for the people of Cambridge. The 10 year
management plan seeks to deliver a vision for Coldham’s Common. Extensive public
consultation had been undertaken to establish how local residents and visitors
use and value the site. These views have been considered carefully when
balancing the multifunctional uses and values of the common. The plan collates
information on important features of the common. Each feature review includes a
brief description of why it is considered important, sets key objectives for
the next ten years and proposes specific actions to achieve them. It also sets
out a monitoring and review timetable for the actions. A 5 year review of the plan is proposed to be consulted on in 2021. Decision
of Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places
i.
Adopted the ten year Coldham’s
Common Operational Management Plan for implementation beginning April 2016;
ii.
Instructed officers to promote the
new plan amongst stakeholders and users and invite volunteer participation in
appropriate activities;
iii.
Instructed Officers to review the
management plan in 12 months’ time and report back any exceptions to Scrutiny
Committee on the effectiveness of the management regime. 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 Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager. The Committee unanimously resolved 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. |
|||||||
Moorings Civil Contract Law Approach PDF 992 KB Report to follow Additional documents: Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Officer’s report contained recommendations for amendments to, and
the management of, the Council’s visitor moorings. The report summarised responses and also detailed issues and options that
have been raised by respondents to a recent consultation on the introduction of
a management regime for the regulation and enforcement of the City Council
moorings based on civil contract law. Feedback received through responses to the consultation supported the
need for an effective enforcement policy for the efficient management of the
City Council’s River Moorings. As a
consequence of receiving and considering feedback through the consultation
process, officers’ propose changes and new recommendations. Community Services Scrutiny Committee previously considered a report on 8th
October 2015 that set out two options to regulate moorings to overcome the
current management issues; the civil possession claims for trespass to move on unauthorised
boaters, and a contractual approach based on the Oxford Model, which sets out
‘licence’ terms that are a contract for the non-exclusive use of a space for a
period of time. The Officer’s report made recommendations on continued formulation of a
regulation policy using contract law principles in addition to the current
civil possession claim for trespass. Decision
of Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places Instructed officers to:
i.
Retain the existing provision of a free 48 hour
visitor mooring period, with no return for 7 days on designated moorings owned
by Cambridge City Council;
ii.
Establish and implement a management regime based
on civil ‘contract law’ as soon as practicably possible, that allows visitor
boats to be regulated and enforced within the existing resources of the
Council;
iii.
Work with Cam Boaters and the Cam Conservators on
the process and procedures required to support a Contract Law Model; and
iv.
Review the existing River Moorings Policy and
report back to Scrutiny Committee in October 2016. 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 Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager. This was
supplemented with an addendum. The addendum included an additional recommendation (shown in bold):
i.
To retain the existing provision of a free 48 hour
visitor mooring period, with no return for 7 days on designated moorings owned
by Cambridge City Council;
ii.
To establish and implement a management regime
based on civil ‘contract law’ as soon as practicable possible, that allows
visitor boats to be regulated and enforced within the existing resources of the
Council; iii.
To work with Cam
Boaters and the Cam Conservators on the process and procedures required to
support a Contract Law Model; and
iv.
To review the existing River Moorings Policy and
report back to Scrutiny Committee in October 2016 further recommendations. The Chair ruled that under 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972
the addendum from the Streets and Open Spaces
Development Manager be considered despite not being made publicly available five clear days
prior to the meeting. The reason that this document could not be deferred was that it was
impracticable to defer the decision until the next committee. Liberal Democrat Councillors made the following comments in response to
the report and addendum:
i.
Expressed concern at rule-in of the addendum and
revised recommendations. Both documents were published late. There was
insufficient time for councillors and the public to read and scrutinise the
documents.
ii.
Expressed concerns about the moorings policy
process. It felt rushed. The Council should take more time to find a solution
with the boating community to tackle problems caused by a minority.
iii.
Requested the decision be deferred. The Executive Councillor
responded:
i.
The option to defer the
report had been considered.
ii.
The contract law principle
had come to committee before.
iii.
There were no material
changes to the report in the addendum, so there were no material reasons to
defer it.
iv.
There was a need to
implement a sufficient deterrent (ability to take enforcement action) as soon as
possible. Delaying the report would delay implementation of enforcement action
for months until the next committee.
v.
The Executive Councillor
had committed to the boating community 12-18 months ago that she would
implement enforcement action, hence it coming to committee now.
vi.
Undertook to work with Cam
Boaters to review any issues. vii.
Approving the Officer
recommendations today would put signs/processes in place to protect those who
were licensed to use moorings. The intention was to tackle issues pre-summer
when demand for moorings increased. Labour Councillors made the following comments in response to the report
and addendum:
i.
There had been
sufficient time to read the Officer’s report and addendum.
ii.
A decision should be
taken today so that an enforcement action policy could be implemented as soon
as possible. This would deter visitors from parking in residential moorings.
People who did this were unaware of the impact they had on others when
illegally parking in someone’s permanent mooring. In response to Members’ questions the Executive Councillor said the
following:
i.
Visitors would be allowed
to stay for forty eight hours instead of six. Six hours was a provisional
figure that had been discounted.
ii.
People in long term
liveables had been encouraged to sign up to the moorings list, but not all had.
The Council would work with Cam Boaters to ensure they did not ‘slip through
the net’ in policy terms, but some engagement was required from the boating
community so that a name appeared on the list at some point. In response to a Member’s question the Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager said the
issue of moorings for holiday hire boats would be addressed in future. The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 2 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. |
|||||||
Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision In October 2015,
it was reported to the Community Services Scrutiny Committee that new large
scale public art projects would be developed and further details presented back
to the Committee in 2016. The Officer’s
report set out the proposed development principles and process for a new public
art commission to promote and celebrate the story of the River Cam; including
exploring its relationship to the foundation of Cambridge as a city, its
ecology and also its social history. The principal aim
of the project is also to promote the use of the river and its environs; to
understand its heritage, and encourage social engagement and leisure activities
to the wider residents of and visitors to Cambridge. The indicative
budget for the project is up to £550,000, funded from currently £450,000 of
strategic public art developer contributions (which cannot be spent on anything
other than off-site public art, and must be spent within a limited timescale),
and external grant applications. The Officer’s
report set out the intended process to achieve a high quality programme of
public art projects for Cambridge. Decision
of Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places Approved the
development, implementation and completion of programme of public art projects
for the River Cam with a maximum combined budget of up to £550,000 to be funded
in part by Public Art Developer Contributions subject to Capital Programme
Board and final project appraisal. 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 Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager. He withdrew the
original recommendation and tabled a revised one (new text in bold): To approve the development, implementation
and completion of programme of public art projects for the River Cam with a
maximum combined budget of up to £550,000 to be funded in part by Public Art
Developer Contributions subject to
Capital Programme Board and final project appraisal. The Streets and Open Spaces
Development Manager made these changes as the spend or authority to spend at Project
Appraisal will need Community Services Scrutiny Committee sign off as the spend
would be over £300,000. The Committee supported the aims of the report. In response to Members’ questions the Executive Councillor for City
Centre and Public Places said the following:
i.
When the report came back to committee for sign
off, it could include details of which areas/wards of the city the S106 public
art allocations came from.
ii.
The intention was to engage communities in the
public art project
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation. The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendation. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |