Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

The Committee agreed by 5 votes to 0 to start future committee meetings at 5:00PM.

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.

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor O’Connell	16/80/Comm	Personal: Director of Cambridge Live.   Member of Cambridge Canoe Club.
Councillor Austin	16/81/Comm	Personal: Member of Cambridge Rowing Club.
Councillor Barnett	16/81/Comm	Personal: Works at Addenbrooke’s Hospital.
Councillor Bird	16/81/Comm	Personal: User of leisure facility mentioned in report.

 

To approve the minutes of the meeting on 17 March 2016 and 26 May 2016.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 March 2016 and 26 May 2016  were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

There were no public questions.

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

The decision was noted.

The decision was noted.

To note decision taken by the Director of Environment since the last meeting of the Community Services Scrutiny Committee.

The decision was noted.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report presented for the City Centre & Public Places Portfolio:

a)   A summary of actual income and expenditure compared to the final budget for 2015/16 (outturn position).

b)   Revenue and capital budget variances with explanations.

c)    Specific requests to carry forward funding available from budget underspends into 2016/17.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places

The Executive Councillor requested that the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources approved the following at the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee on 4 July 2016:

a)   Carry forward requests totalling £25,000 revenue funding from 2015/16 to 2016/17, as detailed in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

b)   Carry forward requests of £881,000 capital resources from 2015/16 to 2016/17 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D.

 

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 (Services).

 

In response to the report the Committee commented that the Bath House Play Area Improvements (agenda P63) delivery date was delayed from summer to September 2016.

 

The Principal Accountant (Services) said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The Council was responsible for various church yards in the city. The Principal Accountant (Services) undertook to clarify with committee members post meeting why there was an overspend on Mill Road Cemetery (agenda P61).

     ii.          The Principal Accountant (Services) undertook to liaise with officers if it was possible to put in a swing in the Dundee Road play area (agenda P64).

   iii.          Normally the Council would expect to receive income from the common land it owned and used for grazing. The Council should receive a farm subsidy, but this had not yet been received, so was not included in the accounts. As such they showed a negative figure.

 

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.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report presented for the Communities Portfolio:

a)   A summary of actual income and expenditure compared to the final budget for 2015/16 (outturn position).

b)   Revenue and capital budget variances with explanations.

c)    Specific requests to carry forward funding available from budget underspends into 2016/17.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

The Executive Councillor requested that the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources approved the following at the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee on 4 July 2016:

a)   Carry forward requests totalling £60,000 revenue funding from 2015/16 to 2016/17, as detailed in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

b)   Carry forward requests of £5,991,000 capital resources from 2015/16 to 2016/17 to fund rephased capital spending as detailed in Appendix D.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The committee made no comments in response to the report from the Principal Accountant (Services).

 

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.

Matter for Decision

Leisure Management within the City has been externalised to several private leisure operators over the last twenty years. The current contract was awarded to Greenwich Leisure Limited (GLL) after an EU competitive tender exercise and they commenced in October 2013 on a seven year contract, with an option to extend for a further three years.

 

The Officer’s report sought approval to award the three year extension to GLL to allow further investments within the leisure contract and GLL to have enough time to realise payback on these further investments.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

       i.          Instructed officers to progress awarding an extension of the Leisure Management Contract to Greenwich Leisure Ltd (GLL) under the current contractual arrangements and existing terms & conditions for the allowed three year extension period commencing October 2020 to the end of September 2023.

     ii.          Authorised officers to continue to work with GLL for further implementation of investments and delivery within the Leisure Contract with the ongoing aim to also reduce the Management Fee paid to GLL over the remaining seven year period.

   iii.          Instructed officers to seek confirmation that GLL will pay the UK Living Wage (currently set at £8.25 per hour), to all members of staff working on the Cambridge contract from 1 October 2016 onwards for the remainder of the Contract term.

 

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 Community, Sport & Recreation Manager.

 

The Committee commented in response to the report that data provided by GLL made it transparent to scrutinise.

 

The Community, Sport & Recreation Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          GLL did not currently have any apprentices working for them on the Cambridge contract, but had two in the past. GLL has its own academy to train younger workers, so the impact of the living wage accreditation on payment for apprentices would be reviewed in the future.

     ii.          There was a mixed uptake by schools for swimming lessons with qualified coaches. Classes had reduced in size from thirty to ten children to give more intensive lessons and were getting good results. The Community, Sport & Recreation Manager undertook to circulate statistics on lesson take up after the meeting.

   iii.          The GLL contract would have some impact on the Council’s Zero Carbon Strategy with further energy saving projects. There was a utility variance mechanism built into the contract to facilitate savings off the management fee if the Council made the investment.

   iv.          The extended operation and season of Jesus Green Lido was questioned, and the Head of Community Services said the GLL contract recognised that residents wanted access to facilities all year round. Any proposals for modifications to Jesus Green Lido would be brought to Community Services Scrutiny Committee for scrutiny.

    v.          Residents could access the Cherry Hinton Village Centre during any agreed refurbishment. The area to the side of the centre would be developed before the existing building was refurbished.

   vi.          Jesus Green and Parkside changing facilities were being reviewed to address local issues with drains.

 

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.

Matter for Decision

The Council’s Anti-Poverty Strategy was approved by the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources at Strategy and Resources Committee on 23 March 2015. The strategy aims to improve the standard of living and daily lives of those residents in Cambridge who are currently experiencing poverty; and to help alleviate issues that can lead households on low incomes to experience financial pressures.

 

The Anti-Poverty Strategy sets out seven key objectives and sixty one associated actions to reduce poverty in Cambridge. The Officer’s report provided an update on progress in delivering key actions identified for 2015/16, with a particular focus on new areas of activity introduced in the strategy. It also provided details of new projects funded through the Council’s Sharing Prosperity Fund for delivery from 2016/17 onwards.

 

The report also provided a more detailed update on the Council’s campaign to promote the Living Wage to local employers, as outlined in the Living Wage Action Plan approved at Strategy and Resources Committee on 23 March 2015.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

       i.          Noted the progress in delivering actions to reduce poverty in Cambridge during 2015/16.

     ii.          Noted the progress in delivering the Living Wage Action Plan during 2015/16.

   iii.          Noted the funding allocated to new anti-poverty projects from the Sharing Prosperity Fund during 2015/16, as set out in Appendixes A and B 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 Strategy and Partnerships Manager.

 

In response to Members’ questions The Strategy and Partnerships Manager said he was unaware of any projects that received European Union funding and so would be unaffected by the EU referendum result.  The Strategy and Partnerships Manager undertook to check that projects received dedicated UK funding.

 

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.

Matter for Decision

This report provides an update on the work of the review to date and outlined proposals for the next phase.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

       i.          Noted the findings from the ‘call for evidence’ part of the community facilities audit undertaken between January and June 2016, as detailed in this report.

     ii.          Agreed to the development of a Community Centres Strategy as set out in section 5 of the report. This will support the review’s objective to build stronger communities and provide a clear rationale for the Council’s support for community facilities under 3 categories:

a)   Core Centres - Council supported and assessed to be strategically important centres.

b)   Transitional Centres - not assessed as strategically important to the Council and require further options appraisal work.

c)    Independent Centres - not assessed as strategically important to the Council and already receive minimal or no Council support or core funding.

   iii.          Agreed to work being undertaken between June and September 2016 to continue to invite and assess Expressions of Interest. This would include following up those already received including the County Council’s review of community hubs, associated City Council strategies and specific areas of interest expressed by voluntary sector organisations.

   iv.          Agreed to promote all community facilities across the city in two phases:

a)   Publishing a list of facilities which is searchable at ward level.

b)   Looking into how this list could be further developed and made available in an accessible and sustainable way.

 

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 Community Funding & Development Manager.

 

The Community Funding & Development Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          Accessibility for disabled people was considered as part of the community facility review, but this was not referenced in the report due to a typographical error. It would be referenced in future, as would a reference to gender identity and belief in the facilities access statement, to ensure that up to date equality work was promoted.

     ii.          Referred to report paragraph 5.8 regarding the programme of work to develop the Community Centres Strategy. Work was on-going to collect data to help the Council identify actions to take in future.

   iii.          There was on-going evidence base work to identify gaps in community facilities. Community facilities work tied into the Anti-Poverty Strategy. City and County Officers hoped to join up strategies in future so they would dovetail rather than work in isolation.

   iv.          Community facility work may identify facilities that residents were unaware of to address the perception that demand exceeded supply.

    v.          Referred to the timetable of assessment work and committee reports set out on P110 of the agenda.

   vi.          A list of community facilities was published on city council webpages.

 

The Urban Growth Project Manager said that further details were listed via the City Council’s Developer Contributions webpage (www.cambridge.gov.uk/s106), setting out which community facilities had received S106 funding with community use agreements. The list included contact details for bookings.

 

The Committee resolved by 6 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.

Matter for Decision

The Council makes decisions on how to use generic S106 developer contributions through annual S106 priority-setting rounds. There have been four rounds since 2012/13, with another planned for later in 2016/17. Many S106 priority projects have been completed, mitigating the impact of development and benefitting local communities.

 

Plans for a June 2016 update to the Executive Councillor for Communities have been highlighted in previous S106 reports to this Committee in October 2015 and March 2016 in order to:

a)   Take stock of progress on major sports and community facilities projects still under development which were allocated S106 funding in earlier S106 priority-setting rounds.

b)   Assess whether any further proposals for strategic/city-wide outdoor and indoor sports projects, submitted for the 2015/16 round, are ready to be considered yet.

 

In summary, it has taken longer than expected for S106 grant-based projects still under development to reach the business case appraisal stage. The council needs to impress the need for greater urgency and progress upon all grant applicants. Meanwhile, none of the outstanding 2015/16 strategic/city-wide sports project proposals are ready to be considered for S106 funding yet: those applicants would be welcome to apply again during the 2016/17 S106 priority setting round.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

       i.          Instructed officers to notify the grant applicants for these long-standing S106 projects still under development that the current S106 funding allocations may be cancelled in early 2017 unless good progress (paragraph 4.7 of the Officer’s report refers) is made by the end of 2016. These projects are:

a)   Changing facility improvements at Cambridge Rugby Club.

b)   Visitor changing facility improvements at King’s College School (with access for other schools and clubs to King’s College School’s indoor and outdoor sports facilities).

c)    Improved community facilities at East Barnwell Community Centre.

d)   Community meeting room provision at Milton Road Library.

     ii.          Agreed to refocus the £250,000 S106 allocations for demolishing and rebuilding the Rouse Ball Pavilion so that the project could encompass proposals to develop new pavilion facilities within or next to Jesus Green Pool.

   iii.          Confirmed that no further proposals from the 2015/16 bidding round for strategic outdoor sports projects or city-wide indoor sports facilities will be recommended for funding: fresh applications can be considered as part of the 2016/17 S106 priority-setting round.

   iv.          Noted that several specific S106 contributions agreed prior to April 2015 have now been received and, as a result, the following projects are now on the council’s ‘projects under development’ (PUD) list:

a)   Community facility improvements at The Junction.

b)   Outdoor sports improvements at Chesterton Recreation Ground.

c)    Indoor sports facility improvements at Netherhall School.

 

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.

 

The Urban Growth Project Manager and Community, Sport & Recreation Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The Rouse Ball Pavilion had not been used as changing rooms for sports for some years as the grounds were prone to flooding. The intention was to move pavilion facilities to Jesus Green Pool. Options for facilities and access for wider community use (eg a café area) were being considered. Community Services Scrutiny Committee would be kept informed as the proposals and preparations develop.

     ii.          The nature of the sports facilities (to be made available for club use through a grant for visitor changing facilities improvements at King’s College School) had changed. If the grant applicant was able to make good progress by the end of 2016, the issues (including the proposed community use agreement) would then be reported to the Scrutiny Committee and the West/Central Area Committee. It was expected that facilities would be hired by clubs rather than members of the public.

   iii.          Any unused s106 funding from the long-standing projects under development (eg if projects did not go ahead or use their full allocations) would go back into the appropriate (strategic/city-wide or devolved) S106 fund, so that it could be made available to other suitable projects. The two community facility projects mentioned in the report had been allocated devolved S106 funding by area committees, so (if the projects were not able to go ahead) these amounts would go back into their devolved S106 funds.

 

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.

Matter for Decision

The council has, for many years, collected S106 contributions to help to mitigate the impact of new development in the city. These used to be based on generic infrastructure types, but a significant change to the regulations governing S106 funding came into effect from April 2015. The impact of these restrictions has been felt across local government – and particularly by those councils (like Cambridge) not yet in a position to introduce the Community Infrastructure Levy.

a)   S106 contributions now have to be for specific projects (stipulated in S106 agreements) related to nearby developments.

b)   No more than five specific contributions can be agreed for the same project.

c)    In addition, councils can now only seek S106 contributions from developments of more than 10 dwellings.

 

The council introduced an interim approach in June 2015, to seek as many S106 contributions as possible within these restrictions. This was reviewed and strengthened last March, although it is recognised that the scope for securing new contributions is now more limited.

 

Last March’s ‘taking stock’ report to the Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places identified ‘target lists’ of play areas and open spaces, which would be used as a starting point for seeking specific contributions in appropriate cases. The setting of similar target lists for outdoor and indoor sports and community facilities was deferred until now, to allow findings from recent facility audits to be reported.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

       i.          Agreed to continue to collect up to five S106 specific contributions for those that the council has already started to collect, as opportunities arise and in appropriate cases. See paragraph 4.2 and Appendix B of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Agreed the ‘target list’ of outdoor and indoor facilities, arising from the recent audits, which will also be used as a starting point for negotiating specific contributions from nearby major developments. See paragraphs 4.5, 4.8 and Appendix E.

   iii.          Agreed that the provisional community facilities ‘target list’ should focus on community centres, houses and rooms owned or managed by the city council. See paragraphs 4.6 – 4.8 and Appendix F.

   iv.          Instructed officers to look to add to the target list more community facilities owned/managed by others, provided that: (a) a clear need for specific contributions can be demonstrated and (b) that the relevant community groups accept the uncertainties and responsibilities attached to specific S106 contributions. See paragraph 4.9

 

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.

 

Officers said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          Head of Community Services: The council was trying to get children and young people systematically involved in decision making. The Children & Young People's Services Manager would be asked to circulate a briefing note to Members.

     ii.          Urban Growth Project Manager: Specific S106 contributions from particular new developments were focussed on projects that satisfy the three legal tests (mentioned in Appendix A of the Officer’s report. It is unlikely that this will be spread evenly across wards.

   iii.          Community Funding & Development Manager: Appendix F of the Officer’s report set out an initial target list as a starting point for negotiations. New projects could come forward to join the list. The target list would be reviewed on an on-going basis.

 

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.