Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Birtles (Councillor Todd-Jones attended as an alternate) and John Marais (Diana Minns attended as an alternate).

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 Blackhurst

13/CS/15

Personal - Member of Trumpington Residents Association.

 

The minutes for the meeting held on 11 October 2012 were approved as true and accurate record subject to the following amendments.

 

Proposed by	Item	Amendment
Diane Best	12/68/CS	To be inserted after vii. in the Scrutiny Considerations section   The representative of the Tenants and Leaseholders (Mr Marais) made the following points   i.        Previous concerns expressed regarding levels of consultation with tenants in the programme so far were re-iterated. It was suggested that it appeared that genuine consultation was not happening. Specific reference was made to the woefully inadequate consultation, which had been observed at a recent meeting regarding the proposals for Campkin Road.   ii.       With specific reference to Water Lane, it was highlighted that the numbers of new affordable homes planned were very few, considering the degree of distress caused to existing tenants by demolition.   iii.      The definition of “affordable” was questioned. It was highlighted that the planning rents were much higher than existing council rents. The representative gave an example of a 2-bed home at the new rent of £126 per week, as compared with a typical existing 1950s 2-bed house with large garden at £99.   iv.      There was not enough evidence of tenant and leaseholder support in some of the developments to support their approval by council.
Councillor Blencowe	12/68/CS	·        Reference to Green End Lane to be updated to Green End Road. (Clare Blair public speaking section)   Reference to Aylesborough Close to be replaced with Water Lane. (Michael Bond public speaking section).
Councillor Blencowe	12/71/CS	The words “is approved” is added to the financial recommendations.
Councillor Blencowe	12/73/CS	The word “park” to be added after skate, in reference to Saffron Walden Skate Park.

 

Subject to the amendments the committee approved the minutes unanimously.

Public questions were deferred to the beginning of the relevant items. 

A petition has been received stating the following

“We the undersigned petition the council to not proceed with plans to demolish and forcibly relocate secure tenants, residents and leaseholders of Council properties in the Campkin Road, Colville Road and other areas

There are 8000 people on the housing register, emergency homeless people are being housed in Peterborough and Ipswich and these proposals are intending to add to the homeless numbers, whilst forcing existing people to move including large numbers of extremely vulnerable people. It will also reduce the available Council housing as well, when more housing is needed not less”

Under the Council’s procedure the petitioners may present the petition and speak for five minutes. Members of the Committee may then discuss the petition for a maximum of 15 minutes.

 

Ian Tyes presented a petition in opposition to the demolition of council properties in the Campkin Road, Colville Road and other areas. Mr Tyes addressed the committee in support of his petition.

 

The committee made the following comments regarding the petition.

 

i.                    The reference to the budget forecast issues currently being experienced by the City Council were clarified.

 

ii.                  It was suggested that the implication of not pursuing re-development was that units would become increasingly difficult to re-let and the number of voids would increase and that this would adversely affect the most vulnerable members of the community.

 

iii.                Reference was made to the City Council “Code of Consultation Best Practice” and it was suggested that best practice had consistently not been followed through the programme. The lack of apparent opportunities for residents to influence the outcome was also highlighted.

 

iv.               The petitioner was thanked for presenting the petition. Significant reservations were expressed about the wording of the petition, which sought to exclude all other options. The importance of considering all options for each site in order to make the best use of all sites was emphasised.

 

v.                 Officers were asked for clarification on the numbers of individuals currently being housed temporarily outside of the city.

 

vi.               The need to consider with compassion all people on the waiting list and not just the residents of specific schemes was emphasised. Officers were asked to confirm the current status of the proposals for Campkin Road and Colville Road.

 

vii.             One of the tenant representatives, acknowledged the difficulties associated with re-development but suggested whether if it would have been better to start with a much bigger scheme so that the improvements were much clearer. Officers were also asked for clarification of the financial implications of not proceeding with specific schemes.

 

The Chair invited officers and the Executive Councillor to respond to the petition.

 

The Head of Strategic Housing addressed the committee and made the following points.

 

·        The Council had only recently been able to build new Council homes, and had begun with a scheme to develop 7 new units.

 

·        The aspirations within the Housing Revenue Account for the development of new units (600-650 within the first 5-10 years) were highlighted.

 

·        It had been hoped to start the programme with the 100+ units at Clay Farm but the timing of that development had made it impossible.

 

·        The re-development programme was responding to the needs to the needs of the housing.

 

·        It was confirmed that there were currently 12 households temporarily placed outside of Cambridge, primarily in Haverhill and Peterborough. The committee were advised of the actions being taken to reduce the reliance on external placements.

 

·        The committee were advised that due to the high land values in the city, the sale of the land allowed for the cross subsidy of affordable housing allowing a greater programme to be delivered.

 

·        It was confirmed that implication of not delivering units, was a penalty of £17,500 per unit from the Homes and Communities Agency. The committee were also advised that the implication of not fulfilling the grant conditions was that any future applications to the Homes and Communities Agency would be compromised.

 

·        It was highlighted with respect to the specific schemes listed on the agenda, 50% of the residents had already moved out or accepted offers to move elsewhere.

 

The Director of Customer and Community Services addressed the committee and made the following points.

 

·        It was explained that the Housing Revenue Account was a ring fenced account and not effected by the budget forecast issues with the general fund.

 

·        It was advised that the programme was still relatively new and processes were evolving in response to feedback. It was also noted that once moved, many people didn’t want to move again.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing addressed the committee and made the following points.

 

·        Re-development would not be possible without a degree of re-location, and it was important to ensure that tenants were found the right new homes and that this can’t be rushed.

 

·        It was explained that it was hoped that the Clay Farm and/or Garage Sites could have been progressed first, but that this had proved impossible. It was also highlighted that the development of the garage sites, was not without complication.

 

·        The committee were re-assured that designs were not fixed at this stage, so tenants, leaseholders and other interested parties still had opportunity to influence the outcomes.

A petition has been received stating the following

“We, the residents of Lichfield Road and Neville Road, Cambridge wish to keep the roads exactly as they are now, and not to redevelop or move us out to alternative accommodation.”

Under the Council’s procedure the petitioners may present the petition and speak for five minutes. Members of the Committee may then discuss the petition for a maximum of 15 minutes. 

Terry Sweeney presented a petition in opposition to the demolition of council properties in the Lichfield Road and Neville Road area. Mr Sweeney addressed the committee in support of his petition.

 

The committee made the following comments regarding the petition. 

 

i.          Reference was made to the Consultation Code of Best Practice, and it was suggested that this had not happened on this development.

 

ii.          Specific reference was made to the comments in the presentation, regarding the overwhelming desire of existing residents to not being relocated and it was suggested that the proposals adversely affected the most vulnerable members of the community the most.

 

The Chair invited the Head of Strategic Housing to respond to the petition and the issues raised by the committee.

 

·        The committee were reminded that the scheme had approved for investigation at Community Services Scrutiny Committee in June 2012.

 

·        It was confirmed that no scheme had yet been brought forward, but that three meetings/workshops had already held with the existing residents to influence the design process.

 

·        With specific reference to Lichfield Road it was explained that whilst aimed at older people, didn’t meet the modern expectations for developments of this type. It was highlighted that the County Council had previously removed Supporting People funding as it didn’t meet the specification for funding.

 

The Executive Councillor re-iterated that no final decision had been made on the scheme.

 

With the agreement of the Chair, Councillors Price and Bird addressed the committee.

 

Councillor Price

 

Councillor Price made the following points regarding the item;

 

·        There continued to be a lack of consultation with the affected residents.

 

·        It was acknowledged that whilst there had been a public meeting, many residents particularly the most vulnerable felt intimidated or didn’t like to leave their properties after dark. It was also noted that the weather was poor on the day of the public meeting.

 

·        Better use of the garage sites was encouraged, rather than the apparent “cherry picking” of the most attractive sites.

 

·        Members were encouraged to withdraw support for the Water Lane development.

 

Councillor Bird

 

Councillor Bird made the following points regarding the item;

 

·        The issue was not political, and that it was important to fight for peoples interests.

 

·        A questionnaire had been sent to all residents at Water Lane and 75% had been returned. The issues highlighted include lack of consultation; poor treatment and associated problems. It was highlighted that whilst moving back was an option, the rents were thought to be too high. It was also highlighted that as a result of the stress one resident had been hospitalised.

 

Public Speakers

 

The committee received a number of representations from members of the public.

 

1.      Clare Blair

 

Clare Blair raised the following points regarding the item

 

·        The inclusion of the report on the agenda was welcomed, however concern was expressed that it had required significant persuasion for the process to be undertaken.

 

·        It was suggested that greater details should be provided on the impact on specific welfare reform changes.

 

·        The assessment relied too heavily on self-identification of issues.

 

The Director of Customer and Community Services confirmed that officers were carefully monitoring the impact of welfare reforms. It was explained that once the impacts were clear the assessment would be updated.

 

2.      Mrs Bennison

 

Mrs Bennison raised the following points regarding the item

 

·        Consultation and engagement had been insufficient.

 

·        Residents didn’t want to move and many of the properties had been recently refurbished.

 

·        Clarification was requested on who was responsible for the incidental costs of moving such as the re-direction of mail.

 

The Head of Strategic Housing confirmed that the cost of mail re-direction was covered in the disturbance costs covered by the Council.

 

3.      Mr Patman

 

Mr Patman raised the following points regarding the item

 

·        Spoke in objection to the proposals for Water Lane.

 

·        A petition of 15 residents had been raised in objection to the development, and that the petition would be sent to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Eric Pickles)

 

·        Limited opportunity to challenge views expressed in the report.

 

·        The decision had already been made.

 

4.      Dr Guskov

 

Dr Guskov addressed the committee and made reference was made to recent research, which suggested an enhanced mortality rate following forced moves.

 

The Director of Customer and Customer Services explained that she had not had sight of the research, but indicated that similar research had been focussed on sheltered housing. The Director encouraged Dr Guskov to forward her a copy of the research.

 

Matter for Decision: To consider the Affordable Housing Development Programme - Equalities Impact

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

The Executive Councillor resolved

 

        i.            To agree the Equalities Impact Assessment for the Affordable Housing Development Programme.

 

      ii.            To bring an EQIA on each new scheme considered for redevelopment to Community Services Scrutiny Committee, prior to a final decision being made to go ahead

 

    iii.            To hold a public meeting with residents at each new scheme proposed for redevelopment, at least 1 month prior to the Scrutiny Committee, and to incorporate views into the final report.

 

   iv.            To endorse the composition of the steering group, as set out in paragraph 3.10 of the committee report to include additional membership to that agreed by Council in October 2012.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

N/A

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Director of Customer and Community Services.

 

The committee made the following comments on the report.

 

i.        It was suggested that the schemes with the most vulnerable residents should not be progressed at the beginning of the program.

 

ii.      The public meetings should provide opportunity to influence the outcome, rather than just supplying information.

 

 

iii.    The report was welcomed and the importance of the steering group to provide human diligence of proposals at the earliest possible stage.

 

iv.     The successful implementation of the 8-year refurbishment programme for sheltered housing was highlighted as good practice.

 

 

v.       It was suggested that in future every effort should be taken to ensure that residents receive all consultation letters, even if they did not agree with the principle or specific proposals and that sufficient time was allowed to respond to the points in the letters. It was also suggested that the letters need to be very clearly written.

 

vi.     Whilst the EQIA was welcomed it was suggested that there should be a detailed assessment of individual residents needs prepared on a house by house basis. The Director of Customer and Community Services confirmed that detailed schedules were prepared as part of the process but didn’t form part of the EQIA.

 

 

vii.   Further information was on the weight assigned to the schooling of children. The Director of Customer and Community Services explained that every effort was made to rehouse appropriately, and that a number of tools were available to the Council to ensure that appropriate housing was found.

 

viii. The difficulty of consulting at the right time was acknowledged in order to give enough notice, but without causing undue concern. It was also highlighted that many elderly and vulnerable residents may have difficulties managing post, and may require additional assistance, and that the absence of a response should not be taken as acknowledgement of receipt or acceptance.

 

ix.     The limitations of the EQIA process were highlighted in providing an assessment of individual needs, as they were focussed differently.

 

x.       The leaseholder representative welcomed the opportunity to attend the consultation events and participated. The concern and distress of residents was highlighted, but that this needed to be balanced against redeveloping the estate.

 

xi.     The importance of the steering group in providing an informal setting for residents to discuss concerns was highlighted.

 

xii.   It was suggested that the EQIA should form the basis of a set of principles for future developments.

 

The committee endorsed the recommendation by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

N/A 

This report contains exempt annexes which are recommended to be NOT for publication and that press and public are excluded by virtue of paragraph 1 and 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Matter for Decision: To consider the letting policy review.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to

 

i.        Approve the amendments to Cambridge City Council’s Lettings Policy

.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

N/A

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Housing Advice Service Manager regarding the lettings policy review.

 

The committee made the following comments on the report

 

 

 

 

 

i.        Clarification was requested on whether the policy provided an opportunity for temporary or fixed term tenancies. The Executive Councillor confirmed that it was the policy of the authority not to offer fixed term tenancies, with the exception of introductory tenancies and especially heavily adapted homes. It was agreed to review the wording to ensure that it was clear.

ii.      Further information was requested on the additional support, which would be provided following the withdrawal of the Home Link magazine. The committee were advised that a number of support mechanisms were in place and that other changes had freed up officer time to support individuals who required additional support.

 

iii.    It was suggested that tenants subject to domestic violence should receive higher than a B band. The comment was acknowledged, but it was explained that the area crossed over with homelessness legislation.

 

iv. It was requested that implications of the introduction of universal credit were carefully monitored.

 

The committee endorsed the recommendations by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

N/A 

Matter for Decision: To consider the Housing Revenue Account Budget Setting Report 2012/13 to 2016/17.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to recommend that Council

.

i.        Approve  capital bids, including resource to re-roof HRA commercial property in Campkin Road and funding to meet the relocation costs of existing residents in housing in Water Lane and Aylesborough Close (subject to approval that the schemes proceed, as shown in Appendix H of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

 

ii.      Approve re-phasing of both the expenditure, and external funding, in respect of the new build affordable housing programme, in line with scheme specific approvals and anticipated cash flows.

 

iii.    Approve the virement of £40,000 of resource from the communal area uplift allocation, where work is still being done to produce full stock condition data, to the budget for work to HRA commercial property, to facilitate the conversion of ECCHO House to a twobedroom dwelling for social housing purposes at a total cost of £95,000, as detailed in the project appraisal at Appendix P, and the Housing Capital Investment Plan at Appendix N of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

 

iv.   Approve a reduction of £80,000 in each of the Disabled Facilities Grant and Private Sector Housing Grants and Loans budgets in 2012/13 due to a combination of reduced demand, coupled with a temporary reduction in activity by the new Shared Home Improvement Agency whilst the service was set up. Permission is sought to re-profile this resource to 2017/18, the end of the current funding period, from which point future funding for this area of investment is at risk.

 

v.     Approve the revised Housing Capital Investment Plan as shown in Appendix N of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

 

vi.   Approve a provisional addition to the Housing Capital Allowance of £25,358,000 in respect of anticipated qualifying expenditure in 2013/14.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

N/A

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Housing Business Manager regarding Housing Revenue Account Budget Setting Report 2012/13 to 2016/17.

 

Further information was requested on the reasons for the reduced demand for disabled facilities grants; the potential effect in future years and what would happen if demand increased. The Head of Strategic Housing explained that there had been reduced demand in the current financial year for the grants, which were designed to provide improvements in private homes. The committee were advised that grant requests came via Occupational Therapists and requests were down. It was explained that any future increase in demand would need to be managed through the budget process.

 

The committee endorsed the recommendations by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

 

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

 

N/A 

Matter for Decision: To consider the Housing Portfolio Budget - 2013/14.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to

 

Review of Charges

 

a)    Approve the proposed charges for this portfolio’s services and facilities, as shown in Appendix B1 to the committee report.

 

b)    Request that the charges for this portfolio’s services and facilities, as shown in Appendix B2 to the committee report, are submitted to Council for approval that no charges are made for these services.

 

Revenue Budgets

 

c)    Approve, with any amendments, the current year funding requests and savings, (shown in Appendix A of the committee report) and the resulting revised revenue budgets for 2012/13 (shown in Section 3, Table 1 of the committee report) for submission to the Executive.

 

d)    Agree proposals for revenue savings and unavoidable bids, as set out in Appendix C of the committee report.

 

e)    Agree proposals for bids from external or existing funding, as set out in Appendix D of the committee report.

 

f)      Agree proposals for Priority Policy Fund (PPF) bids, as set out in Appendix E of the committee report.

 

g)    Approve the budget proposals for 2013/14, as shown in Section 3, Table 2 the committee report for submission to the Executive.

 

Capital

 

h) Seek approval from the Executive to carry forward resources from 2012/13, as

detailed in Appendix G of the committee report, to fund rephased capital spending.

 

i) Confirm that there are no items covered by this portfolio to add to the Council’s Hold

List, for submission to the Executive.

 

j) Approve the current Capital & Revenue Projects Plan, as detailed in Appendix J of the committee report, to be updated for any amendments detailed in (h) and (i) above.

.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

N/A

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report regarding the Housing Portfolio Budget 2013/14

 

The committee endorsed the recommendations by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

N/A 

A petition has been received stating the following

“We the undersigned petition the council to Ask that authority is withdrawn from the project, and that all works cease, all gates are removed, and grazing stopped until the users of the common are properly consulted. Ask that our views are properly heard and taken into account, in particular the introduction of grazing; and the restriction of access across the common for walkers, bicycles and the disable. Ask that the council consider removal of any or all fencing.”

Under the Council’s procedure the petitioners may present the petition and speak for five minutes. Members of the Committee may then discuss the petition for a maximum of 15 minutes. 

The committee received a petition from Chris Smith, Pat White and Vicky Galliard regarding the management of Coldhams Common. The petitioners addressed the committee for 5 minutes.

 

In accordance with the petition scheme, the committee debated the content of the petition and made the following points;

 

i.        The letter from the Executive Councillor proposing the withdrawal certain sections of fencing was welcomed.

 

ii.       The importance of having a co-ordinated stakeholder management plan for the whole common was welcomed.

 

iii.      With reference to the original consultation, it was suggested that the consultation had been effective in parts of the area covered by the common but not across the whole area. The concerns of residents were communicated to the committee.

 

iv.      It was noted that the proposals in relation to cattle related to the reintroduction of grazing, instead of new grazing as had been suggested.

 

v.       The delay between approval of the scheme and implementation may have contributed to some of the concerns that had been raised.

 

vi.               The Executive Councillor was questioned why the consultation couldn’t have been completed appropriately prior to the scheme implementation, instead of post implementation.

 

vii.             It was suggest that there appeared to be a mismatch between the aspiration of the proposals and the implementation.

 

viii.           It was highlighted that the issue had also been recently raised at East Area Committee, and it was questioned whether a management plan existed for the common. It was acknowledged that the production of the plan would be a significant resource implication and may not be realistic to deliver, but it was suggested that plans for smaller areas of the common.

 

The Asset Manager responded to the points raised and made the following comments.

 

·        The consultation process was based on standard City Council practices of a letter drop and press releases.

 

·        The Section 38 process mandated a specific form of consultation, which it was acknowledged was too weak and did not allow for sufficient resident engagement and involvement.

 

The Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places thanked the petitioners for presenting the petition and addressing the committee. The Executive Councillor highlighted a letter sent to the petitioners, which outlined the following actions

 

i.        The removal a stretch of the fencing in front of the steps over the railway to address concerns regarding the safety of users of the Common as they cross over the bridge;

 

ii.       To ask officers to undertake a review of the actions taken to date regarding the project;

 

iii.      To halt any further work on the project and to ask officers to meet with stakeholders including the Friends to discuss what steps can be undertaken to address your concerns; and

 

iv.      To ask officers to develop, in conjunction with stakeholders a management plan for the space that ensures a coordinated approach to the maintenance and any future enhancement.

 

The Executive Councillor proposed that the issue be included in the portfolio plan for the period April 2013 to March 2014, and committed to working with all stakeholders to resolve the issues in a way that is acceptable to all parties.

Matter for Decision: To consider the Corn Exchange Improvements - Exterior and Entrance Lobby

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to

 

Financial recommendations

 

 

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.      Approve that the total cost of the project is £110,000 funded from Corn Exchange Repairs and Renewals Funds and a Capital Reserves bid awaiting approval.

 

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

 

 

Procurement recommendations

 

i.        Approve the carrying out and completion of the procurement of improvements to the main entrance of the Corn Exchange including new internal doors, the installation of external architectural lighting to the front façade and the installation of LCD advertising screens. Estimated total project cost £ 110,000. 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:

 

N/A

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

N/A – Not requested for pre-scrutiny

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

N/A 

Matter for Decision: To consider the upgrade of Corn Exchange Building Management System (BMS) Heating Controls in the Front Plant Room

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to

 

 

Financial recommendations

 

i.        Recommend this scheme which is on the Capital plan (C3227) for approval by Council, subject to resources being available to fund the capital and revenue costs.

 

ii.      Approve the total cost of the project is £20,000, funded from Corn Exchange Repairs and Renewals fund

 

iii.    Note that there are no on-going revenue implications arising from the project.

 

Procurement recommendations

 

i.       Approve the carrying out and completion of the procurement of a heating control system for the Corn Exchange foyer area. 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:

 

N/A

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

N/A – Not requested for pre-scrutiny

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

N/A 

Matter for Decision: To consider the Arts & Recreation Development Funding to Voluntary and Not-for-profit Organisations 2013-14

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to

 

i.        Agree the recommendations for Arts and Recreation Development grants to voluntary and not-for-profit organisations in 2013-14 as set out in Appendix 2 of the committee report, subject to confirmation of the Council’s 2013-14 budget in February 2013 and, in some cases, the provision of further information from applicants.

 

ii.      Agree the Area Committee (Community and Arts & Recreation Development) Grants process from 2013-14 as set out in 3.13 of the committee report and replicated in the Community Development grants report.

 

iii.    Reaffirm the Council’s commitment to the local and national Compact and Best Value Guidance regarding statutory and voluntary sector relationships (replicated in the Community Development grants report).

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

N/A

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Community Development.

 

The committee made the following comments on the report.

 

i.        Support was expressed for the recommendations. Officers were asked to provide additional information on the proposed arrangements for the Arts Theatre. The Head of Arts and Recreation referred to the committee report and outlined the proposed arrangements.

 

ii.      Assurances were sought that the groups offered significantly less than requested. The committee were assured that officers were fully engaged with the groups to ensure that the majority of proposed projects could progress in some form.

 

The Executive Councillor thanked officers for their support in this process.

 

The committee endorsed the recommendations unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

N/A 

This is a joint decision for the Executive Councillor for Arts, Sport and Public Places and the Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health.

To follow

Prior to the start of the item Councillor Bird addressed the committee with the agreement of the Chair. Councillor Bird sought clarification on the reasons for the delay in installing play equipment on the Vie site, which had been purchased in late 2010. Concerns were also raised regarding the current condition of the site, which appeared to suggest that large vehicles had been driven over the site.

 

The Executive Councillor explained that an urgent decision had been taken to purchase the equipment to remove the need to return the associated S106 contributions to the developer. The committee were advised that discussions were ongoing with key stakeholders, however it was explained that there was currently a disagreement regarding the principle and location of the play equipment within the development.

 

The Head of Streets and Open Spaces confirmed that the equipment was currently being stored at no cost to the Council, and that the current delays were largely outside the control of the Council.

 

Matter for Decision: To consider the Community Development and Health Portfolio Revenue and Capital Budgets.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to

 

Review of Charges

 

a)           Approve the proposed charges for Arts, Sport and Public Places services and facilities, as shown in Appendix B of the committee report.

 

b)           Delegate authority for the setting of any new charges arising to the Director of Customer & Community Services. This delegation is intended to cover the financial year 2013/14.

 

 

Revenue Budgets

 

c)           Approve, with any amendments, the current year funding requests and savings, (shown in Appendix A of the committee report.) and the resulting revised revenue budgets for 2012/13 (shown in Table 1 of the committee report.) for submission to the Executive.

 

d)           Agree proposals for revenue savings and unavoidable bids, as set out in Appendix C of the committee report.

 

e)           Agree proposals for Priority Policy Fund (PPF) bids, as set out in Appendix E of the committee report..

 

f)           Approve the budget proposals for 2013/14 as shown in Table 2 of the committee report, for submission to the Executive.

 

Capital

 

g)      Seek approval from the Executive to carry forward resources from 2012/13, as detailed in Appendix G of the committee report, to fund re-phased capital spending.

 

h)           Approve capital bids, as identified in Appendix H of the committee report, for submission to the Executive for inclusion in the Capital & Revenue Projects Plan or addition to the Hold List, as indicated.

 

i)           Approve the creation of six capital programmes, remits and proposed outcomes as outlined in Annex 1 of the committee report

a. Replacement of Parks & Open Space Litter & Waste Bins

b. City-wide Developer Contribution Funds

c. Area Committee (East) Developer Contribution Funds

d. Area Committee (North) Developer Contribution Funds

e. Area Committee (South) Developer Contribution

f. Area Committee (West/Central) Developer Contribution Funds

 

j)           Confirm that the items detailed in Appendix I be transferred from the Council’s Hold List for addition to the Capital Plan as outlined in Agenda Item 16 (“Options for the use of City-Wide Developer Contributions”)

a. Logan’s Meadow Local Nature Reserve extension

b. Paradise Local Nature Reserve improvements

 

k)       Seek approval from the Executive that the following to schemes be deleted from the Capital & Revenue Projects plan as detailed in Appendix G of the committee report.

a. SC499 – Outdoor Fitness Equipment in Parks

b. SC514 – Petersfield Play Area Equipment

 

l)           Approve the current Capital & Revenue Projects Plan, as detailed in Appendix J, of the committee report. to be updated for any amendments detailed in (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k) above.

 

m)           Approve the following project appraisals as detailed in Agenda Items 13 and 14

a. Corn Exchange Improvements

b. Corn Exchange - improvements to heating management system

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

N/A

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Principal Accountant (Services) regarding the Revenue and Capital Budgets for the Arts, Sport and Public Places portfolio.

 

The committee asked the following questions

 

i.                    Further clarification was requested on the variances in the budgets, specifically in the Arts and Recreation area. The Head of Arts and Recreation provided an overview of the reasons for variances for each of the budget headings.

 

 

 

ii.                  Additional clarity was requested on the delays with implementing the play facilities on the Vie Site. The Executive Councillor explained the reasons for the purchase of the equipment and the reasons for the delay.

 

iii.                Clarification was requested on the income performance of the Corn Exchange. The Head of Arts and Recreation explained that the end of year forecast or the current year was a £35k underachievement against the overall income target; this income target had been increased in 2011/12 by a further  £50k.

 

iv.               Officers were asked to provide more information regarding the review process for the Folk Festival. The Head of Arts and Recreation explained that the festival was extensively reviewed every year. The Executive Councillor confirmed that the ward specific issues had been addressed.

 

v.                 It was suggested that it was expected that the next 12 months would be a challenging climate for the entertainment business. The Head of Arts and Recreation accepted that although economic conditions were challenging, the service had made progress across a number of areas to address this and the Executive Councillor also supported that view

 

vi.               Further clarification was requested on the Vie Play Equipment. Following discussion regarding the issues on the site, the Executive Councillor suggested that he; Ward Councillors and officers should meet on site to go through all the issues. In response to a specific question, the Asset Manager confirmed that the ground maintenance had been contracted to the county council in order to demonstrate (and prevent repayment of S106) that the funds had been committed.

 

vii.     The Executive Councillor was asked regarding the use of Pyes Pitches, and whether they could be better utilised. The Executive Councillor explained that recent review of the demand suggested that local sports clubs preferred Chesterton Recreation Field.

 

The committee endorsed the recommendations by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

N/A 

Matter for Decision: To consider the Annual Update About the Work of “Strategic” Partnerships.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to

 

i.          Continue to work with the emerging Health and Wellbeing Board (including the Cambridge Local Health Partnership) for Cambridgeshire and the Children’s Trust for Cambridgeshire (including the Area Partnership) to ensure high quality services are available to Cambridge citizens and to press for the continuing application of our partnership principles as a part of the emerging partnership arrangements.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

N/A

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

N/A – Not requested for pre-scrutiny

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

N/A 

Matter for Decision: To consider Community Development Funding to Voluntary and Not-for-profit Organisations 2013-14

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to

 

i.          Agree the recommendations for Community Development grants to voluntary and not-for-profit organisations in 2013-14 as set out in Appendix 2 of the committee report, subject to confirmation of the Council’s 2013-14 budget in February 2013 and, in some cases, to the provision of further information from applicants.

 

ii.       To agree the Area Committee (Community and Arts & Recreation Development) Grants process from 2013-14 as set out in 3.13 of the committee report and as replicated in the Arts & Recreation Development grants report.

 

iii.      To reaffirm the Council’s commitment to the local and national Compact and Best Value Guidance regarding statutory and voluntary sector relationships (replicated in the Arts & Recreation Development grants report).

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

N/A

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Community Development regarding Community Development Funding to Voluntary and Not-for-profit Organisations 2013-14.

 

The committee welcomed the ongoing support to the voluntary and community sector through this programme.

 

The committee endorsed the recommendations unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

N/A 

Matter for Decision: To consider the City Council support for Credit Unions.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved

 

1.    To note the support the Council already gives to the two credit unions

 

2.    To endorse the planned work programme

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

N/A

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Community Development regarding Credit Unions.

 

Officers agreed to explore the suggestion of promoting volunteering opportunities within the business and finance sector.

 

The committee endorsed the recommendations unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

N/A 

Matter for Decision: To consider the Neighbourhood Community Planning projects in Abbey, Arbury and Kings Hedges – Development Plans.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved

 

i.        To agree to continue funding the 3 NCP projects at their current level for the next 2 years (2013/14 and 2014/15).

 

ii.       To support the setting up of a Service Level Agreement (subject to both parties agreeing terms) with Kings Hedges Neighbourhood Partnership to run Nuns Way Pavilion for 3 years from April 2013.

 

iii.      To review the 3 NCP projects again in October 2014.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

N/A

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Head of Community Development regarding Neighbourhood Community Planning projects in Abbey, Arbury and Kings Hedges - Development Plans

 

The committee welcomed the proposals.

 

The committee endorsed the recommendations unanimously.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

N/A 

To follow

Matter for Decision: To consider the Community Development and Health Portfolio Revenue and Capital Budgets.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to

 

Review of Charges

 

a)           Approve the proposed charges for this portfolio’s services and facilities, as shown in Appendix B of the committee report.

 

Revenue Budgets

 

b)           Approve, with any amendments, the current year funding requests and savings, (shown in Appendix A of the committee report) and the resulting revised revenue budgets for 2012/13 (shown in Section 3, Table 1 of the committee report) for submission to the Executive.

 

c)           Agree proposals for revenue savings and unavoidable bids, as set out in Appendix C of the committee report, which have been incorporated into the budgets presented for this portfolio.

 

d)           Agree proposals for bids from external or existing funding, as set out in Appendix D of the committee report, if applicable.

 

e)           Agree proposals for Priority Policy Fund (PPF) bids, as set out in Appendix E of the committee report.

 

f)           Approve the budget proposals for 2013/14, as shown in Section 3, Table 2 of the committee report, for submission to the Executive.

 

Capital

 

g)      Seek approval from the Executive to carry forward resources from 2012/13, as detailed in Appendix G of the committee report, to fund rephased capital spending.

 

h)           Approve capital bids and savings, as identified in Appendix H of the committee report, for submission to the Executive for inclusion in the Capital & Revenue Project Plans.

 

i)           Approve the current General Fund Capital & Revenue Projects Plan, as detailed in Appendix J of the committee report, to be updated for any amendments detailed in (g) and (h) above of the committee report.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the officer report

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

N/A

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Principal Accountant (Services) regarding the Revenue and Capital Budgets for the Community Development and Health portfolio.

 

The committee endorsed the recommendations by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

N/A