To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Kightley, Councillor Moghadas and Councillor Birtles.

 

Councillors Pippas and Todd-Jones attended as alternates.

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.

 

Councillor Brown declared a personal interest in item 21 as a member of Link and Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Mental Health Trust.

 

Councillor Pitt declared a personal interest in item 20 as a former trustee of Arbury Community Centre.

 

Councillor Todd-Jones declared a personal interest in item 20 as a trustee of Arbury Community Centre.

 

Councillor Blackhurst declared a personal interest in items 18 and 20 as a trustee of Trumpington Residents association.

 

Councillor Brown declared a personal interest in item 15 as a director of Ravensworth Residents Association.

To approve the minutes of the meeting on 15^th March 2012 and the Special meeting of the 24^th May 2012 (enclosed separately). 

The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed as a true and accurate record.

Mrs Clare Blair asked two public questions.

 

i.        With the reference to item 23 (Record of Urgent Decision – Community Development Grants), it was explained that St Andrew Hall had subsequently declined the opportunity to host a Citizens Advice Bureau kiosk, due to the potential cost liabilities after year 1. An apology was sought from the Executive Councillor due to the lack of detailed consultation with St Andrews Hall, prior to the decision being reported.

 

In response the Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health agreed to investigate, and acknowledged that if an apology was appropriate it would be made, but it was also highlighted that kiosks did already successfully operate in a number of non-council buildings such as Arbury Community Centre.

 

ii.       With reference to the Arts, Sport and Public Places out turn, clarification was requested on the reasons for the lack of progress on the development of facilities at Pyes Pitch.

 

In response the Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places explained that it was a complex issue, and that whilst the scheme had been approved, no specific S106 funding sources had been identified at that stage. The Executive Councillor explained that new arrangements would greatly enhance transparency, and that schemes were now only approved and added to the capital plan where specific S106 funding sources had been identified. The Executive Councillor also confirmed that officers were continuing to try and identify appropriate S106 funding sources.

Matter for Decision: To consider the Housing Advice Service – office refurbishment project.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

Financial

 

i. Approve the commencement of this scheme, which is already included in he Council’s Capital & Revenue Project Plan (SC528).

 

ii. Note that the total cost of the project is up to £26,500, funded from the general fund (£10,000 of this has already been approved at Community Services Scrutiny Committee in January 2012). The balance of £16,500 would be funded by a combination of £1,500 from the section’s repairs and renewals fund to cover decoration costs and £15,000 from reserves.

 

iii. Note that there are no ongoing revenue implications arising from the project.

 

Procurement

 

iv. Approve the carrying out and completion of the procurement of works to refurbish and reconfigure office space on the ground floor at Hobson House to a value of up to £26,500 including architects’ fees Subject to:

- The permission of the Director of Resources being sought prior to proceeding if the quotation or tender sum exceeds the estimated contract.

- The permission from the Executive Councillor being sought before proceeding if the value exceeds the estimated contract by more than 15%.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

Not applicable.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

 

N/A

Matter for Decision: To consider the 2011/12 Revenue and Capital Outturn, Carry Forwards and Significant Variances for the Housing Portfolio.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

a) To agree carry forward requests, totalling £128,260 as detailed in Appendix C of the committee report, are to be recommended to Council for approval.

 

b) To seek approval from Council to rephase capital expenditure of £1,074,000 from 2011/12 into 2012/13, in respect of the balance of investment required to create the Assessment Centre on East Road, as detailed in Appendices D and E of the committee report.

 

 

c) To seek approval from Council to carry forward net capital resources to fund rephased capital spending of £5,372,000 between 2011/12 and 2012/13, in relation to investment in the Housing Revenue Account, as part of the Housing Capital Investment Plan, as detailed in Appendices D and E and the associated notes to the committe report, with the resulting need to increase the use of revenue funding of capital expenditure by £1,149,000 in 2012/13.

 

 

d) To seek approval from Council to rephase the use of £68,000 of developer contributions for affordable housing, from 2011/12 to 2012/13, to assist in funding the re-development of the Seymour Court / Street site to deliver 20 units of affordable housing.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report.

 

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Principal Accountant (Services) regarding the year-end out-turn for the Housing portfolio.

 

The committee made the following comments on the report

 

i.        A number of questions were asked about the practice of using temporary accommodation in Peterborough, and concerns were raised about the impact that this on individuals in terms of employment, education and economic well-being. Officers advised that homelessness prevention activities had been increased to reduce the number of people requiring emergency accommodation. It was noted that whilst rough sleeping had increased, there was no major increase in statutory homeless cases. The committee was also advised that the supply of available housing within the system had slowed, which had resulted in a reduction in the number of available emergency places.

 

ii.       With regards to the use of emergency accommodation in Peterborough, an explanation was requested on what specific actions were planned to reduce and remove the need to use this type of accommodation.  Officers and the Executive Councillor outlined the steps undertaken to date

 

-         A new leasing arrangement has been introduced, but the effectiveness of this has been limited by the effects of the broad market rental area.

-         Bed and breakfast providers in the city have been approached to see whether they would be willing to be added to the providers list. It was noted that to date no provider had been willing to enter into an agreement.

-         Additional supply would be provided on the Mayor Growth sites and other developments in the city.

iii.      The appropriateness of certain types of emergency accommodation used in the city, as such 222 Victoria Road was questioned. The comment was noted. Mrs Best also requested information regarding the cost of transferring people to Peterborough. The Housing Options and Homelessness Manager agreed to provide information outside of the meeting. The committee were re-assured that every effort was made to move people back to Cambridge as soon as practical.

 

iv.          Clarification was requested on why the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) budget was unspent in light of the difficulties in providing emergency accommodation in the city. The Head of Refuse and Environment explained that CPO was only used as a last resort, and that other approaches and interventions were used first.

 

v.       With regards to the capital expenditures and the reported carried forwards, it was questioned other opportunities to utilise those resources in the short terms had been lost.

 

vi.      With reference to the homelessness grant, it was suggested that the reporting gave the impression that the programme was delayed or not performing as planned, where as actually it was a multi year allocation. The Executive Councillor agreed to raise the issue of reporting grants outside of the meeting, to see whether there was a more appropriate corporate approach to give a clearer indication of the actual position.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

 

N/A

Matter for Decision: To consider the tenancy strategy.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

i. Approve the Tenancy Strategy for Cambridge subject to the revision of the wording to paragraph 5 of the strategy (changes underlined.

 

'The Council itself, through its own new-build programme, has demonstrated to the Homes and Communities Agency that 80% of market rents in the City would be unaffordable to most people on the Housing Register, and that rent levels should be around 65% of market rents and close to Local Housing Allowance rates. The Council would like to see other Registered Providers negotiating towards a similar position - to ensure some parity of Affordable Rent levels across the City, and to ensure that rents remain as affordable as possible.'

 

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Strategic Housing regarding the Tenancy strategy.

 

The committee made the following comments on the report

 

i.          Significant concerns were raised about any interference with the principle of secure tenancy, and the implications for communities if short terms tenancies were introduced.

 

ii.       The importance of ensuring that rents were affordable was agreed. Concern was expressed that the document appeared to only state that 65% target rents was an aspiration on new build programmes, and not the entire sector. The Executive Councillor re-assured the committee that the section was a guide.

 

iii.      The affordability of rents over 65% was strongly questioned. The Executive Councillor acknowledged the concerns raised about the affordability of rents over 65%, but suggested that it would be possibly more appropriate to set the target as a fixed percentage below local housing allowance.

 

iv.          Clarification was requested on the reference to the assumption with regards to secure tenancies on page 60 and 61 of the committee report. The Executive Councillor acknowledged the concern, and explained that policy applied to all providers in the city but that it remained the preference of the city council that other providers provided secure tenancies.

 

v.       In response to a question, the Housing Strategy Manager explained that was a requirement of the Localism Act for the city council to introduce a tenancy strategy.

 

Following discussion regarding the appropriateness of the wording with regards to the target rent for the present stock, it was agreed to delegate agreement on the wording to Chair, Spokes and Executive Councillor. The revised wording for paragraph 5 is listed in the decision text.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

 

N/A

Matter for Decision: To consider the Housing Strategy 2012-2015.

 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

Approve the Council’s Housing Strategy for 2012-15.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Housing Strategy Manager regarding the Housing Strategy.

 

The committee made the following comments on the report

 

i.          Concerns were expressed about the potential for further marginalisation of social housing.

 

ii.       The Housing Strategy Manager was asked for clarification on the consultation arrangements, and whether the response rate was normal. The committee were advised that the consultation had been focussed on key stakeholders, and had been delivered within existing resources.

 

 iii.          Clarification was requested on whether the strategy sought to emphasise environmental issues on developments. The Head of Strategic Housing outlined the range of expectations, with regards to new developments.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

 

N/A

The committee resolved to exclude the press and public during this item as the report contained an exempt appendix, by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006.

 

Matter for Decision: To consider a project appraisal for the transformation of Cambridge Access Surgery into a holistic one-stop shop for homeless people

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

Financial

 

i. Approve the commencement of the updated scheme (SC529). (Note: Funding was included in the Council’s Capital & Revenue Project Plan in February 2012 and made incorrect reference to a grant, whereas the intention is to directly fund the refurbishment of a Council asset.)

 

ii. Delegate authority to the Director of Customer and Community Services to commence the project at the point at which a new qualified provider is in place and the lease on the building is completed with that provider.

 

iii. Note the total cost of the project will be no more than £100,000, funded from the repairs and renewals fund for 125 Newmarket Road.

 

iii. Note that there are no ongoing revenue implications arising from the project for the Council. The lessee, in accordance with previous lease arrangements, will meet any ongoing maintenance costs.

 

Procurement

 

iv. Approve the carrying out and completion of the procurement of renovations to the Council’s asset at 125 Newmarket Road, (known as Cambridge Access Surgery) at a cost not exceeding £100.000. Works to be carried out within budget after consultation with internal architects. Subject to:

 

- The permission of the Director of Resources being sought prior to proceeding if the quotation or tender sum exceeds the estimated contract.

 

- The permission from the Executive Councillor being sought before proceeding if the value exceeds the estimated contract by more than 15%.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report by 7 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

 

N/A

As this report contains a confidential appendix it may be necessary, by virtue of paragraphb3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, to exclude the press and public during this item.

 

The committee resolved to exclude the press and public during this item as the report contained an exempt appendix, by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006.

Matter for Decision: To consider the Affordable Housing Programme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

i. Approve revisions to the 3 Year Rolling Programme 2012.13 to 2014.15 in the context of the wider Affordable Housing Programme

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Strategic Housing.

The committee made the following comments on the report

i.          Caution was expressed about the practice of re-developing garages in favour of housing, particularly in area of pre-existing limited parking. It was explained that with the increased popularity of smaller city style cars, the assumption that modern cars were too large should be challenged. The Head of Strategic Housing noted the concerns, however explained that in certain circumstance access or other constraints would preclude development including future use as garages.

ii.          Concern was expressed about the process, particularly the lack of pre-existing consultation with Ward Councillors or communities. The Head of Strategic Housing explained the rationale behind the process, and the mechanism for informing affected tenants.

iii.          Clarification was requested on the consultation in relation to Colville Road, Auger Road and 641-643 Newmarket Road. The committee were assured that the first two groups would be consulted, but that it had been discovered that the latter was a commercial premises not in the ownership of the city council, therefore would be removed from the list.

iv.          Concern was expressed about the length of time between initial notification of a proposal and further developments in specific examples, and the effect of the consequential uncertainty for existing residents. The Executive Councillor explained the mechanisms in place to support residents through this potentially uncertain time.

v.       It was noted that planned maintenance work had only just been completed at Anstey Way, and it was questioned whether the proposed scheme was likely to be viable. The Head of Strategic Housing explained that the report was requesting permission to investigate the viability of redeveloping the site identified in Anstey Way and that the condition of any existing properties wouold be taken into account.

vi.      In response to further concerns about the process, it was agreed share an example letter sent to resident with members of the committee. The Director of Customer and Community Services provided an overview and reminder of how and why the established process had been introduced

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

 

N/A

Matter for Decision: To consider the Council new build programme – scheme approvals.

 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

i. Note the indicative mix, design and layout of the schemes and that they are subject to planning approval.

 

ii. Approve the scheme capital budget highlighted in the report to cover the Construction Cost of the scheme; Home Loss Payments to tenants and leaseholders and professional quantity surveyor fees.

 

iii. Approve that delegated authority be given to the Director of Customer and Community Services following consultation with the Director of Resources and the Head of Legal Services to seal a Development Agreement with our preferred house-builder/developer partner.

 

For the following schemes

 

a. 40 to 64 Colville Road and 1 to 9 Augers Road

b. 98-144 Campkin Road

c. Revised Latimer Close scheme

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Strategic Housing.

The committee made the following comments on the report

i.        With respect to the Campkin Road scheme, it was questioned whether the numbers of units were being reduced. The Head of Strategic Housing explained whilst the number of bedrooms were being reduced, the number of bed spaces was being increased.

 

ii.       The Head of Strategic Housing was asked whether through re-developments fixtures and fittings were re-used, particularly where decent homes work had been completed recently. The committee were advised that it was rarely possible to re-use fixtures and fittings.

 

iii.          Officers were encouraged to engage in planning pre-application discussions, to ensure that schemes were of the highest quality possible. The Head of Strategic Housing confirmed that pre-applications discussions would be conducted at the appropriate stage.

 

iv.          Clarification was requested on the status of previous proposals regarding the Royal British Legion site on Colville Road. The committee were advised that there was no specific proposal at this stage, and discussions were on going.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

 

N/A

Matter for Decision: To consider the Cambridge City Council Affordable Housing at Clay Farm.

 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

i. Approve, in principle, for the Council to own and manage up to 104 Affordable Housing dwellings at Clay Farm.

 

ii. Delegate authority to the Director of Customer and Community Services, in liaison with the Director of Resources and in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing and relevant Spokesperson, to approve an Affordable Housing scheme that meets the Council’s required housing standards and is financially viable.

 

iii. Delegate authority to the Director of Customer and Community Services, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing and relevant Spokesperson, to execute the necessary legal documentation in respect of the Affordable Housing with the preferred partner, selected from the proper procurement process.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Strategic Housing regarding the development of affordable housing at Clay Farm.

The committee made the following comments on the report

i.           Officers provided clarification on the implications of providing the site as 100% social housing.

ii.       It was noted that even with rents set at 65 % of market rent, they would be still high compared with other areas of the city.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

 

N/A

Matter for Decision: To consider the project appraisal for the replacement of the Corn Exchange Passenger Lift.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

Financial

 

i. Recommend this scheme (which is not included in the Council’s Capital & Revenue Project Plan) for approval by Council, subject to resources being available to fund the capital and revenue costs.

 

ii. Note that total cost of the project is £14,500, funded from repair and renewal budgets.

 

iii. Note that there are no ongoing revenue implications arising from the project.

 

Procurement

 

iv. Approve the carrying out and completion of the procurement of a replacement passenger lift for the Corn Exchange. The cost is expected to be £14.500.Subject to the permission from the Executive Councillor being sought before proceeding if the value exceeds the estimated contract by more than 15%.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

Not applicable.

 

The Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

 

N/A

Matter for Decision: To consider a grant to Kettle’s Yard Education Wing Project.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

i. Authorise the Head of Arts & Recreation to contract with Kettle’s Yard through a grant agreement to offer the award of £40,000 in Autumn 2012.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

Not applicable.

 

The Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

 

N/A

Matter for Decision: To consider the 2011/12 Revenue and Capital Outturn, Carry Forwards and Significant Variances for the Arts, Sport and Public Places Portfolio.

 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places Portfolio:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

i. Agree carry forward requests, totalling £34,170 as detailed in Appendix C of the committee report, are to be recommended to Council for approval.

 

ii. Seek approval from Council to carry forward capital resources to fund re-phased net capital spending of £789,000 from 2011/12 into 2012/13 and of £81,000 from 2012/13 into 2011/12 as detailed in Appendix D of the committee report.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Principal Accountant (Services) regarding the year end out-turn for the Arts, Sport and Public Places portfolio.

The committee made the following comments on the report

i.        In response to a number of questions, the Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places confirmed that existing S106 schemes, which were currently in the capital plan, would be completed through the current process. Schemes and ideas, which were not on the capital plan, would be feed into the new process for prioritisation.

ii.          Councillor requested clarity on future reports on the status of S106 projects, and whether list could be differentiated between Area Committee and Executive Committee lead projects. The Executive Councillor re-iterated the previous comments, but also explained that there was no intention to shift the accountability for existing projects.

iii.          Further to the public question from Mrs Blair, an update was requested. Officers agreed to provide an update on the alleged discrepancies in the budget reports, regarding the amount of money allocated to the Pyes Pitch scheme. The committee were also advised that it was intention was for the project to be in place for the start of next season.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

 

N/A

Report enclosed separately  

Matter for Decision: To consider developer contributions and devolved decision-making to Area Committees.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health and the Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Urban Extension Growth Project Manager regarding the devolution of decision making to area committee.

The committee made the following comments on the report

i.          Concern was expressed that the proposals and it was suggested that they were not fully developed. Specific concerns were raised that the existing resources and structures were not sufficient to fully support the aspirations.

ii.          Clarification was requested on the membership of the project team. The Urban Extension Growth Project Manager explained that the teams included managers from across the organisation including Committee Services, Community Development, Accountancy and Streets and Open Spaces. Further concerns were raised that no additional resources were being introduced to support the project.

iv.      In response to a number of questions, the Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places confirmed that existing schemes, which were currently in the capital plan, would be completed through the current process. Schemes and ideas, which were not on the capital plan, would be feed into the new process for prioritisation.

The Executive Councillors encouraged all councillors to engage with the process.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health and the Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillors (and any dispensations granted)

 

N/A

Matter for Decision: To consider the Cambridge Folk Festival production tenders for the 2013 event (and potentially 2014-17).

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

i. Authorise the Head of Arts & Recreation to tender for contractors to provide services for the Folk Festival.

 

ii. Authorise the Head of Arts & Recreation to award the contract(s) to the most favourable tender(s), in accordance with pre-determined selection criteria.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Arts and Event Manager regarding a number of procurement activities for the folk festival.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report by 7 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor for Arts, Sports and Public Places approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillors (and any dispensations granted)

 

N/A

Matter for Decision: To consider the Southern Connections – Public Art Commission.

 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

Financial

 

i. Recommend this scheme (which is not included in the Council’s Capital & Revenue Project Plan) for approval by Council, subject to resources being available to fund the capital and revenue costs.

 

ii. Notes that the total cost of the project is £107,446, funded from S106 developer contributions and a planning condition.

 

iii. Note that there are no ongoing revenue implications arising from the project.

 

Procurement

 

iv. Approve the carrying out and completion of the procurement of the Southern Connections public art commission. Subject to:

- The permission of the Director of Resources being sought prior to proceeding if the quotation or tender sum exceeds the estimated contract.

- The permission from the Executive Councillor being sought before proceeding if the value exceeds the estimated contract by more than 15%.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Public Art Officer regarding South Fringes Art project.

The committee made the following comments on the report

i.        The project was welcomed.

ii.       It was highlighted that not all members of the public would have mobile phones, or mobile phones which support the use of apps. The comment was noted.

iii.                It was agreed that Ward Councillors would be appropriately involved

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report by 4 votes to 0.

 

 

The Executive Councillor for Arts, Sports and Public Places approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillors (and any dispensations granted)

 

N/A

Matter for Decision: To consider the 2011/12 Revenue and Capital Outturn, Carry Forwards and Significant Variances for the Community Development and Health Portfolio.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

i. Agree carry forward requests, totalling £13,180 as detailed in Appendix C of the committee report, are to be recommended to Council for approval.

 

ii. Seek approval from Council to carry forward capital resources to fund re-phased net capital spending of £56,000 from 2011/12 into 2012/13 as detailed in Appendix D of the committee report.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Principal Accountant (Services) regarding the year end out-turn for the Community Development and Health portfolio.

 

Members noted Appendix C to the committee report did not include an item (£16,000 - Food and Occupational Safety - to accommodate the council's foreseeable requirements when the legal responsibilities for public health are transferred from the Health Protection Agency ) which had been incorrectly listed in the Environmental & Waste Services portfolio and should be within the Community Development & Health portfolio and so, subject to approval at Council, this carry forward would be transferred to Community Development & Health budgets for 2012/13.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

 

N/A

Matter for Decision: To consider the options Appraisal Study into the Future Management of the Council's existing and planned Community and Neighbourhood Centres

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

i. Confirm the overall objectives for any future management arrangements for the Council’s community centres set out at paragraph 4.4 of the committee report.

 

ii. Agree that the options highlighted in the report by Marilyn Taylor Associates and set out in paragraphs 5.7, 5.13 and 5.14 of the committee report be taken forward in Phase 2.

 

iii. Request officers to report back in January 2013 to Community Services Scrutiny Committee with recommendations about future management of the Council’s existing community centres and management of the planned Clay Farm centre.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Community Development on the future management of community centres.

i.          Further information was requested on why the proposed North West Cambridge development in conjunction with the university was not included in this review. The Executive Councillor explained that due to the wide range of issues associated with the development, it was being dealt though Strategy and Resources Scrutiny as a decision for the Leader.

ii.       The premise of the review was questioned, and it was assumed that some form of outsourcing was inevitable. The Executive Councillor re-assured the committee that no decisions had been made, and that it was good practice to periodically review all services.  

The Head of Community Development assured all members that they would be fully briefed at all stages of the project.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

 

N/A

Matter for Decision: To consider the formation of a Local Health Partnership for Cambridge and the developing Cambridgeshire Health and Wellbeing Strategy.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

i. Note the findings of the JSNA, Phase 6, Summary Report 2012

 

ii. Agree to prepare and return a Council response to the draft Health and Wellbeing Strategy, during its consultation period, and for the Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health to sign this off, after consultation with the opposition spokesperson

 

iii. Agree a terms of reference to guide the Cambridge Local Health Partnership

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Refuse and Environment regarding the creation of a Local Health Partnership.

The committee agreed that the City Council had a very important role in promotion health initiatives, and that other partner organisations should be encouraged to fully appreciate the role that the City Council can play.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report by 4 votes to 0.

 

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

 

N/A

Matter for Decision: To consider a project for the refurbishment of public areas at the Crematorium.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

Financial

 

i. Approve the commencement of this scheme, which is already included in the Council’s Capital & Revenue Project Plan (SC524).

 

ii. Note that the total cost of the project is £120,000, funded from R&R

 

iii. Note that there are no ongoing revenue implications arising from the project.

 

Procurement

 

iv. Approve the carrying out and completion of the procurement for the refurbishment of the Chapels and public areas to be carried out under a phased programme by requesting separate quotes. Subject to:

 

The permission from the Executive Councillor being sought before proceeding if the value exceeds the estimated contract by more than 15%.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Specialist Services regarding the redevelopment of areas at the crematorium.

In the absence of questions, the officers who attended from the crematorium were thanked for their attendance

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report by 6 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

 

N/A

The committee noted the decisions taken by Executive Councillors since the last meeting.

Confidential Report not attached