Agenda and minutes

No interests were declared.

Councillor Blencowe emphasised the need for the minutes to record a true, accurate and balanced account of any discussion.

This comment was noted.

It was agreed that the Chair would sign an amended set of the minutes outside of the meeting.

The decision was noted.

Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chair used her discretion to alter the order of the agenda to take item 8 next. However, for ease of the reader, these minutes will follow the order of the published agenda. 

The Chair ruled that under 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 the following item be considered despite not being made publicly available for the Committee five clear working days prior to the meeting. The reason that the item could not be deferred is that the planting season is very near its end and delaying a decision would mean planting waiting until late autumn. 

Matter for Decision: At the Council meeting in July 2012, Cambridge City Councillors paid tribute to former Councillor Margaret Wright, who had recently passed away.  It was agreed that a fitting memorial should be established. Land at 24-38 Whitehill Road has been identified and the Executive Councillor is asked to consider the recommendation for change of use of the land, to enable the creation of the Orchard.

Decision of the Executive Councillor:

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

       i.          Permit the use of the land at 24-38 Whitehill Road to allow the creation of an orchard to be dedicated to the memory of Councillor Margaret Wright.

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

Scrutiny Considerations:

The committee received a report from the Green Space Manager.

The committee expressed their support for this project.

In response to members questions the Green Space Manager confirmed the following:

       i.          An official opening ceremony would be arranged on completion of the project.

     ii.          Whilst allotment holders had not been specifically included in the consultation process, comments had been received regarding increased access to the site and related security risks. 

   iii.          It was agreed that officers would discuss with the allotment holders any concerns regarding security of the site, and it was noted that S106 funds could be available to help address any issues. 

The Chair noted that Councillor Johnson had expressed his support for the Memorial Orchard.

The Executive Councillor thanked the Members Panel for their hard work on this project and expressed support for this very fitting memorial to former Councillor Margaret Wright.

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations unanimously.

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted):

Not applicable.

Matter for Decision: The report provided details of the redevelopment of Atkins Close garages and a currently vacant site on Wadloes Road.  In keeping with the model for the redevelopment of Council sites, mixed tenure schemes are proposed and to be developed with the Council’s new house-builder/developer partner, Keepmoat. These sites in the Council new build programme are brought forward now in order that the proposed can be discussed with local residents and stakeholders to ensure that the new schemes can be completed by October 2014. 

Decision of the Executive Councillor:

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

For the following scheme:

Atkins Close garage site

       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 officer’s report to cover the construction cost of the scheme 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 scheme:

Wadloes Road

   iv.          Note the indicative mix, design and layout of the schemes and that they are subject to planning approval, subject to consultation with immediate residents.

    v.          Approve the scheme capital budget highlighted in the report to cover the construction cost of the scheme and professional quantity surveyor fees. 

   vi.          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.

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

Scrutiny Considerations:

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

In response to members questions on the Atkins Close garage site the Head of Strategic Housing and the Development Officer (Growth) confirmed the following:

       i.          Neighbourhood consultation had been undertaken on the scheme in January and had received positive feedback.

     ii.          Whilst the play area opposite the garage site was not well used, concern had been raised about the loss of play provision in general. However, indicative plans for a new play area within the new development had formed part of the consultation and received positive feedback from the public.

   iii.          Discussions were ongoing with officers in the Streets and Open Spaces Team regarding new play provision.  

   iv.          Only 5 of the 14 garages were currently occupied and alternative sites were being offered to those users.

    v.          As part of the process for a ‘change of use’ the Council had to demonstrate that the current use of the site could not be maintained.

In response to members questions on the Wadloes Road scheme the Head of Strategic Housing and the Development Officer (Growth) confirmed the following:

       i.          No formal engagement had been undertaken with local residents to date. However, if approved, the scheme would go through a robust process of neighbourhood engagement at the pre-application and formal planning application stages.

On the proposal of Councillor Kightley, the committee agreed that the two schemes be voted on separately.

Councillor O’Reilly highlighted the need for local residents to be consulted on the Wadloes Road scheme prior to the pre-application and formal planning application stages.

Councillor O’Reilly proposed the following minor amendment to the Wadloes Road scheme recommendation (addition underlined):

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

The committee endorsed the proposed amendment.

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations for the Atkins Road garage site by 4 votes to 0.

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the amended recommendations for the Wadloes Road scheme by 4 votes to 0.

The Executive Councillor approved the amended recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted):

Not applicable.

Matter for Decision: The report informed Members of the homelessness reviews process at Cambridge City Council and requested permission to continue to outsource this function as well as proposing a change the constitution to avoid any doubt about the process following a legal challenge. A further report would be presented at the next Civic Affairs Committee and recommendations from both reports would be subject to ratification at Full Council on 18^th April 2013.

Decision of the Executive Councillor:

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

       i.          Support the recommendation to Civic Affairs Committee and Council that the Council treats its functions relating to the review of homelessness applications under the Housing Act 1996 as executive functions.

     ii.          Subject to the Council accepting the above recommendation, to authorise the Director of Community Services to re-tender the homelessness reviews contract for a period of 3 years with an option to extend for a further 2-year period; and to extend the existing contract until a new contract begins.

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

Scrutiny Considerations:

The committee received a report from the Housing Advice Service Manager.

In response to members questions the Head of Legal Services and the Director of Customer and Community Services confirmed the following:

       i.          A legal challenge to a homelessness decision had questioned whether the decision to outsource the reviews was properly taken. It was also desirable to clarify whether the reviews should be treated as an executive or regulatory function. A further report would be presented at the next Civic Affairs Committee and recommendations would be subject to ratification by Full Council on 18th April 2013.

     ii.          Whilst the outsourcing decision had not been successfully challenged, the Council was recommended to take a cautious approach and review the process.

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

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted):

Not applicable.

Matter for Decision: To endorse the proposed arrangements for management of the event and to authorise officers to enter into a four-way contract with Cambridgeshire County Council, Welcome To Yorkshire and Leeds City Council to ensure the Council’s requirements and safeguards are clearly laid out and appropriately secured.

Decision of the Executive Councillor:

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

       i.          Endorse the proposed arrangements for the Council’s management of the event.

     ii.          Authorise officers to enter into a contractual arrangement with Cambridgeshire County Council, Welcome To Yorkshire and Leeds City Council to ensure the Council’s requirements and safeguards are put in place.

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

Scrutiny Considerations:

The committee received a report from the Head of Arts and Recreation.

In response to members questions the Head of Arts and Recreation confirmed the following:

       i.          Whilst the project was in its very early stages, discussions were ongoing on how best to engage with the local community before, during and after the event.

     ii.          Agreed to make enquires regarding the public having an opportunity to cycle the route.

   iii.          The Cambridge Volunteer Centre had agreed to assist in the recruitment and management of volunteers for the event. Members of the public could contact the Volunteer Centre direct or via Council officers to express an interest in volunteering for the event.

   iv.          More detail would be added to the City Council’s website in due course.

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations unanimously.

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted):

Not applicable.

Decision of the Executive Councillor:

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

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

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

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

Scrutiny Considerations:

The committee received a report from the Head of Arts and Recreation.

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations unanimously.

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted):

Not applicable.

Matter for Decision: Proposal that byelaws be introduced to enable enhanced protection of Cherry Hinton Chalk Pits Local Nature Reserve. The site consists of three adjacent chalk pits designated for their ecological value. In addition to LNR status, two of the Pits (East Pit and West Pit) are also nationally designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). The Wildlife Trust own and manage East Pit and lease the other two pits from the City Council.

Decision of the Executive Councillor:

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

     i.        Defer the item and ask officers to bring back a revised report to a future meeting.

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

Scrutiny Considerations:

The committee received a report from the Green Space Manager.

In response to members questions the Green Space Manager and the Nature Conservation Project Officer confirmed the following:

     i.        The site consisted of three dry clay pits. Two of the pits are owned by the City Council and have been designated as nature reserves. The third pit had been privately owned until 2009 but was now owned by the Wildlife Trust. As this site was now open to the public, the Wildlife Trust have requested the adoption of byelaws to protect the site.

    ii.        Agreed to arrange a site visit for members of the committee and to circulate a detailed site map.

The committee raised concern over the specific wording of the byelaws and highlighted the possibility for confusion over interpretation and enforcement. Sections (5), (6) and (15) were highlighted as specific examples.

It was suggested that clearer guidance and a site-specific enforcement policy would be beneficial to support the byelaws.  

Whilst they supported the implementation of the byelaws in principal, the committee proposed that the item be deferred and brought back to a future meeting.

The Executive Councillor agreed that the item be deferred and brought back to a future meeting.

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted):

Not applicable.

Matter for Decision: The report sets out how work had progressed since the Scrutiny Committee meeting in October 2012 when it was decided not to take forward work with the YMCA to create a City Centre Youth Venue. At that meeting it was agreed that officers should carry out further consultation with the young people attending the Urban Sports Festival and bring projects ideas back to this committee for consideration.

Decision of Executive Councillors (Community Development

and Health/Arts, Sport and Recreation).

The Executive Councillors resolved that:

The Youth Officer and staff from Arts and Recreation:

       i.          Jointly deliver an Urban Sports Festival in the city during the summer of 2013.

     ii.          Ask the young people involved in the delivery of the first Urban Sports Festival (and other interested young people) to work with the informal member panel on a feasibility study into the provision of an indoor skate facility in the city.

   iii.          Explore options in the city to support and promote young people’s music including the identification of non licensed venues where they can perform.

   iv.          Pilot a web based brochure for young people.  The brochure will promote the range of sports and arts opportunities available for young people in the city. 

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

Scrutiny Considerations:

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

The committee made the following comments regarding the report:

       i.          Noted the success of the Urban Sports Festival held in 2012 and welcomed the recommendations in the officer’s report.

     ii.          Noted that the ‘Youth Summit’ held at Meadows Community Centre had also highlighted the need for flexible spaces for young people to access.

   iii.          Highlighted the need to continue wider engagement with young people to highlight their wants and needs.

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations unanimously.

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted):

Not applicable.

Matter for Decision: This report covers the draft Community Development and Health Portfolio Plan 2013-14, which sets out the strategic objectives for the portfolio for the year ahead, describes the context in which the portfolio is being delivered and details the activities required to deliver the outcomes and the vision.  Performance measures and risks are also shown for each strategic objective.

Decision of the Executive Councillor:

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

       i.          Approve the draft Community Development and Health Portfolio Plan 2013-14

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

Scrutiny Considerations:

The committee received a report from the Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health.

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

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted):

Not applicable.

Matter for Decision: The report examines the pressures on the Council’s Community Development Service and pulls together the findings of recent reviews of each part of the service to provide a summary document setting out high level Aims and Objectives for the next 3 years.

Decision of the Executive Councillor:

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

       i.          Agree the draft Aims and Objectives for the Community Development service for 2013 to 2016 as set out in Appendix C of the officer’s report.

Reasons for the Decision: As set out in the officer’s report

Any alternative options considered and rejected: As set out in the officer’s report

Scrutiny Considerations:

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

Councillor O’Reilly thanked officers for their hard work.

In response to members questions the Head of Community Development and the Executive Councillor confirmed the following:

       i.          Acknowledged the need to ensure resources were available to build new communities and strengthen existing ones.

     ii.          Whilst the Community Foundation no longer managed the Community Development and Leisure Grants on behalf of the City Council, they provided an important support service for groups looking to access funding.

Councillor Brown proposed the following amendment to Strategic Objective CD5 - Appendix C of the officer’s report (addition underlined): 

       i.          Work with partners to help reduce the community development needs of disadvantaged groups and communities experiencing social and economic deprivation or other social disadvantage, in particular those at risk from measures to reduce the national debts.

Councillor Brown proposed the following amendment to Strategic Objective CD6 - Appendix C of the officer’s report (addition underlined): 

Provide support for targeted groups including children and young people; low-income families with pre-school children; active older people; black and minority ethnic communities; people with disabilities; women and LGBT residents.

The committee endorsed the proposed amendments.

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations unanimously.

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted):

Not applicable.