Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

Agenda Item	Councillor	Interest
15/11/CS	Reid	Personal: Trustee of Cambridge Literary Festival who was a grant applicant.
15/12/CS	Reiner	Personal: Member of Tennis Club

 

To approve the minutes of the meeting of 16^th October 2014. 

The minutes of the meeting of 16^th October 2014 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

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

 

Councillor Holland addressed the Committee and made the following points:

 

     i.        S106 grant to Anglia Ruskin University of £250K was made at the last meeting on the assumption that planning permission would be granted for the development of their sports fields off Whitehorse Lane, Girton.

    ii.        South Cambs DC refused the planning application last year.

   iii.        What has become of these monies and where does the £250K sit in the budget?

 

The Executive Councillor for Community, Arts and Recreation, Councillor Johnson responded as follows:

 

The S106 funding had not yet been received. The £250k contribution from the S106 agreement (07/003/OUT) was made up of 5 x £50k instalments due at the 99^th, 199^th, 299^th, 399^th and 499^th occupation. Although it was anticipated that some money (first instalment) might come in sometime in 2016, it was going to be a while until the full amount is received.

 

When received, the £250k outdoor sports funding was for sports ground replacement in the North West quadrant (Castle, Arbury, West Chesterton and Kings Hedges) or within 1 mile of the City boundary.

 

Strictly speaking, a £250K grant had not been made and was not part of the current S106 grant-setting process. The money has been ear-marked for when it comes in and it can’t be spent until it had been received. ARU are aware of the payment profile and accept the risk going forward on that basis (i.e. the City Council was not obliged to pay the money to ARU until/if it receives it from the developer once the trigger points were reached).

Due to the restriction on how this contribution can be spent, no others bid had been received.

 

Councillor Holland’s other questions were taken when the agenda items were considered and are noted along with those items.

To note the decision taken by the Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places

 

The decision was noted.

Report to follow.

Matter for Decision

 

The report detailed the budget proposals relating to the City Centre and Public Places portfolio that are included in the Budget-Setting Report (BSR) 2015/16.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places

 

The Executive Councillor is resolved to:

 

Review of Charges:

 

     i.        Approve the proposed charges for this portfolio’s services and facilities, as shown in Appendix A of the Officer’s report.

Revenue:

    ii.        Noted the revenue budget proposals as shown in Appendix B of the Officer’s report.

Capital:

   iii.        Noted the capital budget proposals as shown in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

  iv.        Delete some schemes from the Capital Plan as shown in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

   v.        Adjust capital funding for items 2 (c) to 2 (e) of the Officer’s report, as appropriate.

 

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee received a report from the Principal Accountant (Services). He highlighted the following errors in the report: items C2723 Corn Exchange Heating and C3724 King Hedges Learner Pool, had been included in this portfolio in error. The Chair rejected a suggestion that both Portfolios reported on the agenda, be discussed together.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Asset Manager (Streets and Open Spaces, stated the following:

     i.        The riverside moorings budget had been overachieving with income better than expected. There was therefore no need to increase fees at this point.

    ii.        Fees would be reviewed in the next year when there was a clearer picture of the number of moorings and the impact of Riverside.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Project Delivery & Environment Manager confirmed that the Prison of War Memorial Plaque project was at an early stage of development. The committee was invited to comment on the budget only at this stage. Full consultations would follow regarding the design and the location.

 

The Director of Environment added clarity to the increased charges proposed for the Bereavement Services. He stated that a substantial investment in the services was required and the increased fees were within a 5% range. Charges for Band 1 services had been keep as low as possible. The Director of Environment undertook to provide the required information to Members of the Committee in a briefing note.

 

Councillor Reiner asked for more details on the Market Charges and questioned why an admin fee had been introduced. The Director of Environment undertook to provide the required information to Members of the Committee in a briefing note.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Principal Accountant added clarity to the new reporting methods for the Budget Report. He explained that an additional heading of, ‘Projects under Development’, had been added to allow a full business case to be agreed before items were added to the Capital Plan. This would allow projects to be fully explored before they were allocated a budget.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 3 to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Report to follow.

 

Matter for Decision

 

Since the process for the next S106 priority-setting rounds was agreed in October 2014, local groups and clubs have submitted grant applications for developer contributions funding to help them develop their projects.

This report sets out the 10 bids for small-scale public art proposals.

Five of these, totalling just over £39,000, were recommended, for approval. 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to approve the following S106 grant applications, subject to satisfactory further information from the applicants and grant agreements:

     i.        The Big Draw 2015 event in Chesterton (£1,000);

    ii.        Production of a new Cambridge Sculpture Trails leaflet (up to

£2,600);

   iii.        Public art project in Rock Road library community garden (£6,490);

  iv.        Twilight at the Museums light projection animation (£14,000); and

   v.        ‘Creating my Cambridge – clicking to connectivity’ involving former pupils from Abbey Meadows junior school (£15,000).

 

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee received a report from the Urban Growth Project Manager.

 

The Committee questioned how well applicants understood the process and suggested that the guidance could be clearer regarding the special provisions for schools. The Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places undertook to give this matter further consideration and to investigate the possibility of circulating improved guidance to schools.

 

The Public Art Officer confirmed that Officers did assist applicants with the application process.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Report to follow.

 

Question from Councillor who is not a Member of this Committee: Councillor Holland

 

Councillor Holland stated that while this proposal was welcomed she had concerns about the sustainability of such installations. She requested that future projects give more consideration to the use of local materials and suppliers. She questioned the carbon impact of transporting granite blocks around the world.

 

The Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places, Councillor O’Reilly thanked Councillor Holland for raising the issue. She stated that the standard approach to such projects was to use local companies and materials whenever possible.

 

Matter for Decision

 

The report requested the approval of one of four artist concept proposals, which were submitted in response to a public artwork commission. The aim of the commission was to celebrate the development of the code of football rules first drawn up by Cambridge University in 1848 (‘Cambridge Rules’) and to acknowledge their role in shaping the establishment of the modern day rules of Association Football now played world-wide. The four artist concept proposals under-went extensive public consultation and formal quality assessment.  The results of this consultation and assessment were included in the report and have informed the selection of the concept recommended for approval. The approved budget for this commission is £115,000, funded by Public Art Developer Contributions.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to approve:

 

     i.        The detailed design and implementation of the Neville Gabie and Alan Ward concept – ‘Written in stone, interpreted worldwide – brought back to Cambridge’

 

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee received a report from the Project Delivery and Environment Manager.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

     i.        Welcomed the project.

    ii.        Expressed satisfaction with the robust consultation process.

 

The Executive Councillor suggested that the artist should be invited to brief members on the concept and design.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Report to follow.

 

Matter for Decision

 

The Budget-Setting Report (BSR) 2014/15 would be considered, firstly, by Strategy & Resources on 19 January 2015 The report detailed the budget proposals which related to this portfolio that were included in the BSR.

 

The report also included any recommendations concerning review of charges or project appraisals for schemes in the Capital & Revenue Projects Plan for this portfolio.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community, Arts and Recreation

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

Review of Charges:

     i.        Approve the proposed charges for this portfolio’s services and facilities, as shown in Appendix A of the Officer’s report.

Revenue:

    ii.        Note the revenue budget proposals as shown in Appendix B of the Officer’s report.

Capital:

   iii.        Note the capital budget proposals as shown in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee received a report from the Principal Accountant (Services).

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

     i.        Item X3572: Welcomed along with the hope that disadvantaged young people, in affluent Wards, would not be forgotten. Ward Councillors wanted to be involved as this project developed.

    ii.        Free swimming lessons were welcomed. However, concerns were raised about the ability of some schools to pay for the associated transport.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Community, Arts and Recreation confirmed that the Board was in place to oversee the Clay Farm Multi use Centre and further reports would come to this committee in due course.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 3 to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

 

The report set out how Cambridge City Council would approach its strategic and developmental role in respect of the arts and cultural life of the city from 1 April 2015. It built on the previous Cambridge City Council Arts Strategy, which ran from 2011-2014.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community, Arts and Recreation

 

The Executive Councillor resolved:

 

     i.        To approve the approach outlined in the report and agree that more detailed work is undertaken to develop an action plan and bring this to scrutiny committee for consideration and approval.

 

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee received a report from the Community Funding and Development Manager.

 

At the request of the Executive Councillor the following amendment to the recommendation was tabled. Additional wording in bold and underlined:

 

To approve the approach outlined in the report and agree that more detailed work is undertaken to develop an action plan and bring this to scrutiny committee for consideration and approval.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

     i.        Requested that future reports in this matter included more details regarding the finances involved.

    ii.        Thank the officer’s involved for their hard work on this matter.

 

The Committee resolved by 7 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

 

The report detailed the implementation process undertaken for the new Community Grants fund and made recommendations of awards, for voluntary and community organisations, under the new scheme, for 2015-16.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community, Arts and Recreation

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to agree:

 

     i.        The grants to voluntary and community organisations for 2015-16, as set out in Appendix 1 of the officer’s report, subject to the budget approval in February 2015 and any further satisfactory information required of applicant organisations.

 

    ii.        The Area Committee grants budget as set out in paragraph 8.1 of the Officer’s report, subject to the budget approval in February 2015.

 

   iii.        To establish a Transition Fund of £75,000, from 2014-15 unallocated funding, to support voluntary and community organisations through the first year of the implementation of the new priorities and outcomes as detailed in Section 6, and as allocated in Appendix 1, of the Officer’s report.

 

  iv.        That officers reviewed the Discretionary Rate Relief contributions from this fund, in discussion with the Business Rates service, and bring a report back to this committee in March 2015, as detailed in paragraph 6.1 of the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Community Funding and Development Manager. The Executive Councillor for Communities, Arts and Recreation, Councillor Johnson, welcomed the comprehensive and targeted approach taken to achieve the desired outcomes while meeting the required savings.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

     i.        Requested future analyses of the effectiveness of the grants.

    ii.        Suggested that it was unclear from the report how the grants that had been awarded aligned with the priorities. However, it appeared that the Arts had suffered disproportionate cuts.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Community Funding and Development Manager said the following:

   iii.        She appreciated that Members were unable to compare this year’s grants with the previous year, but stated that including figure for previous years would have been misleading as they were not like for like. However, officers had considered those factors when making their recommendations.

  iv.        Stated that applications that met the new criteria were allocated funding.

   v.        Said that it had not been possible to split applications into priority headings. However, she assured members that there had been a reasonable coverage across the priorities. In addition, some proposals met more than one priority.

  vi.        Confirmed that grant recipients would be subject to future evaluation and monitoring. However this would be proportionate to the size of the organisation and the grant received.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Report to follow.

Question from Councillor who is not a Member of this Committee: Councillor Holland.

 

Councillor Holland had three areas of concern regarding the proposed award for King’s College School.

1.   Will the community use of this venue be permissive? Is the School fully engaged with the local community? Does the school have evidence from existing partners to support the inclusive nature of facilities?

2.   Were state schools offered similar opportunities to apply for funding?

3.   This is a large allocation. Will it be used in the near future or is there a danger that it will sit in the school’s bank account.

 

The Urban Growth Projects Manager responded. He explained that £75,000 allocation was being awarded from the City-wide indoor sport budget. They had also been awarded £50,000 from the West Central Area Committee from their devolved budget.

 

All awards would be subject a Community Use Agreement. The School already had existing external users who used the facilities at weekends. In addition, a local football tournament used the school’s pitches. The proposed new facilities would make community use easier as the new changing rooms would not require access to the school building. 

 

Matter for Decision

 

Since the S106 priority-setting process was agreed in October 2014, local groups had submitted grant applications for developer contributions funding to help them develop their projects. The report set out the nine bids that had been made for new or improved sports facilities to benefit more than one area of the city (see Appendices B and C of the Officer’s report).

 

Another 11 applications for local community facilities and outdoor sports projects were being reported to the relevant area committees in early 2015 (see Appendix D of the Officer’s report).

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community, Arts and Recreation

 

The Executive Councillor is recommended to:

     i.        approve the following S106 grants, subject to more details, project appraisal approval and community use agreement (see section 5 of the Officer’s report)

a.   Cambridge 99 Rowing Club: upgraded/extended kitchen facilities (£5,000 outdoor sports grant),

b.   Cambridge Canoe Club: additional boat & equipment store

(£10,000 outdoor sports grant),

c.   Cambridge Rugby Club: new changing rooms (provisional

£200,000 outdoor sports grant – see paragraph 5.6 of the Officer’s report),

d.   King’s College School: sports centre – visitor changing rooms (£75,000 indoor sports grant),

e.   Cambridge Gymnastics Academy: refurbishment of warehouse as a gymnastics facility (£65,000 indoor sports grant),

f.     Netherhall School & 6th Form Centre: supplementary funding for gym facility (£64,000 indoor sports grant);

    ii.        agree the allocation of £80,000 of community facilities S106 contributions from the strategic fund towards the Clay Farm community centre (paragraph 4.6 refers of the Officer’s report).

 

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee received a report from the Urban Growth Projects Manager.

 

Councillor Reid stated that the West Central Committee had expressed reservations regarding providing funding to a private school. They had resolved to make the award subject to the councillor approval of the wording of the Community Use Agreement. Money awarded for community facilities must be used for inclusive facilities. Defining community use as use by groups was problematic as there was no clear definition of what constitutes a group.

 

Officers confirmed that due to the size of the award (£75,000), a full project appraisal would come back to this committee for further consideration. 

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

     i.        Suggested that details of other application made by the same organisation be included in the report.

    ii.        Suggested that grant applicants be asked if they pay the living wage

   iii.        Suggested that applicants should ensure contractors do not blacklist workers.

  iv.        Welcomed the update on the Rouse Ball pavilion.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Urban Growth Projects Manager stated the following:

     i.        All applications for S106 funding must demonstrate additional benefit for the community.

    ii.        Community Use Agreements were legal documents which included equality and diversity requirements and were monitored annually.

   iii.        A website which highlighted venues which had Community Use Agreements was under construction.

  iv.        Signage regarding Community Use to be displayed in venues was also under consideration.

   v.        Appendix D of the Officer’s report did not contain figures as Area Committees had not yet agreed which projects to support.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.