Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors Al Bander and Todd-Jones.

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	Item	Interest
Brown	12/20/CS       12/7/CS and 12/16/CS   12/16/CS	Personal interest as a member of Cambridge and Peterborough Mental Health Trust and Cambridgeshire Link. Personal interest as her wife works for the Citizens Advice Bureau Personal interest as an executive of the Liberal Democrat LGBLT group
Blackhurst	12/16/CS       12/14/CS	Personal interest as a member of Trumpington Residents Association of which his wife is secretary. Personal interest as his wife works at Trumpington School.
Cantrill	12/11/CS	Personal interest as a member of his family is a member of Cambridge and Coleridge Athletics Club who are a grant recipient.
Reiner	12/11/CS	Personal interest as a member of the Lawn Tennis Club who are a grant recipient.
Dryden	12/12/CS	Personal interest as a member of the British Legion.
Dryden	12/19/CS	Personal interest as a Magistrate.

 

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 13 October 2011. 

The minutes of the meeting of the 13^th October 2011 were approved and signed as a correct record. 

Public speakers were present and wished to speak on agenda item eight. It was agreed that the committee would receive their comments when the item was considered. 

Matter for Decision:

 

To consider the draft Housing Portfolio Plan 2012/23

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to note the draft Housing Portfolio Plan 2012/13.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the Officer’s report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Executive Councillor gave a brief overview of the 2012/13 Housing Portfolio Plan.

 

Members of the Scrutiny Committee were then invited to comment and discuss the plan.

 

Members welcomed the Heatseekers initiative and its potential contribution to the carbon reduction targets for the City.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing approved the recommendations.

 

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

N/A 

Matter for Decision:

 

To approve the overall base revenue and capital budget position for the Housing Portfolio. The report compared the proposed 2011/12 revised budget to the budget at September 2011 and detailed the budget proposals for 2012/13 and 2013/14.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

Review of Charges:

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

 

Revenue Budgets:

b) Approve, the current year funding requests and savings, (shown in Appendix A of the Officer’s report) and the resulting revised revenue budgets for 2011/12 (shown in Table 1 of the Officer’s report) for submission to the Executive.

c) Agree proposals for revenue savings and unavoidable bids, as set out in Appendix C of the Officer’s report, which had 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 Officer’s report, if applicable.

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

f) Approve the budget proposals for 2012/13, as shown in Table 2 of the Officer’s report, for submission to the Executive.

 

Capital:

g) Seek approval from the Executive to carry forward resources from 2011/12, as detailed in Appendix G of the Officer’s report, to fund rephased capital spending.

h) Approve capital bids and savings, as identified in Appendix H and Appendix H(a) of the Officer’s report, for submission to the Executive for inclusion in the Capital & Revenue Project Plans and Housing Capital Plan respectively.

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

k) Note that revised Housing Capital Investment Plan for 2011/12 to 2016/17, would be presented to the special joint Housing Management Board and Community Services on 8th February 2012, to include the impact of in year savings in capital budgets, re-allocation of budgets for decent homes works, rephasing of existing projects and schemes and incorporation of capital bids (as detailed in Appendix H(a) of the Officer’s report, submitted as part of the 2012/13 budget process.

l) Approve the two project appraisals as detailed in Appendix K of the Officer’s report.

m) Approve a provisional Housing Capital Allowance for 2012/13 of £11,384,000.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

At its meeting on 20 October 2011, Council gave initial consideration to the budget prospects for the General Fund for 2012/13 and future years. An overall savings requirement was set in November 2010, for the following four years, with the expectation that identified service reviews would contribute significantly to achievement of these targets. This position was reviewed in October 2011 and the position in relation to any service reviews within this portfolio is shown in paragraph 6.3 and the associated table and appendix of the Officer’s report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Committee received a report from the Principal Accountant regarding the Housing Portfolio Budget 2012 –2013.

 

Members requested further details on the funding to increase the uptake of energy efficiency improvements in the private sector (Appendix K of the Officer’s report). The Principal Accountant agreed to provide the details outside of the meeting.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing approved the recommendations.

 

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

N/A 

Matter for Decision:

 

To review the grants that were awarded by Community Services Scrutiny Committee from the Housing General Fund for this year in the context of the corporate policy and make recommendations to continue to grant fund the organisations during 2012/13 and 2013/14.

 

Decision of Executive  Councillor for Housing:

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing resolved to

 

              i.      Agree, subject to the budget setting process and formal adoption by Council of the 2012/13 and 2013/14 budgets, the funding to the voluntary sector organisations as detailed in the Officer’s report;

            ii.      Agree to consider a further report to committee in March on a proposal, subject to the budget setting process, to offer a capital grant of up to £100,000 to be drawn from the existing Renewals and Replacements fund to upgrade the facilities at the primary health care service for homeless people at 125 Newmarket Road;

          iii.      Note, the proposed Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) Homelessness Prevention Grant budget allocation for 2012-13.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

The voluntary sector provides key services to homeless people, including services which enable the Council to meet its statutory obligations. Housing grants enable the voluntary sector to provide services to vulnerable and disadvantaged groups and, through the provision of specialist housing and support services, improve clients’ quality of life, help tackle social exclusion and prevent repeat homelessness. The grants make a significant contribution to the Council’s Medium Term Objective to ensure that Cambridge is ‘A city which recognises and meets needs for housing of all kinds – close to jobs and neighbourhood facilities’

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Housing Options and Homelessness Manager regarding the Housing General Fund Grants to Voluntary Organisations. Members noted a slight amendment to item 3.3 on page 107 of the Officer’s report. The proposed extension to the SLA with the CAB would run until 31^st March 2014 and not 2012 as stated in the report.

 

The committee requested further details on how the SLA’s listed on pages 106 and 107 of the Officer’s reports were reviewed and monitored. The Officer confirmed that the grant agreement detailed performance indicators and recipients of grants were assessed against those indicators.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

N/A 

Matter for Decision:

 

To consider the draft Arts, Sports and Public Places Portfolio Plan 2012/13.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to note the draft Arts, Sports and Public Places Portfolio Plan 2012/13.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the Officer’s report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Executive Councillor gave a brief overview of the 2012/12 Arts, Sports and Public Places Portfolio Plan and tabled the following additional priority to Strategic Objective 2. 

 

2.7 work with all parties to achieve a solution to illegal parking on the key public open space of Midsummer Common.

 

Members of the Scrutiny Committee were then invited to comment and to discuss the plan.

 

In response to members questions the Executive Councillor and officers confirmed the following:

 

              i.      The improved range of activities and funding structures for the Corn Exchange were welcomed. The building was of architectural interest but had not been celebrated and cared for, as it deserved. Residents were in favour of maintaining its diverse cultural programme but would not continue to support a loss generating venue. A step-by-step approach towards a break-even point was being pursued with a five year timeframe.

            ii.      Other local venues also deserved support and thegrants process would be reviewed. However, under the Compact Agreement, grants could not be withdrawn without consultation. There was a timeline to agree the best way forward with this.

          iii.      The demand for community gardens, orchards and allotments remains high. Some land had been identified for this purpose and members were asked to help to identify any further land that could be used for such provision. 

         iv.      Improving Open Spaces and retrofitting drainage solutions were explained.

           v.      Members welcomed the proposals for the visit of the Olympic Torch in July. The project was on schedule to deliver a celebration the City could be proud of and to leave a lasting legacy for the residents of Cambridge.

         vi.      Members welcomed the additional priority regarding Midsummer Common.

 

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

 

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

N/A

The following project appraisals have been included:

Funding for Improvements to Cherry Hinton Hall 

Coleridge Recreations Ground Improvements 

Matter for Decision:

 

To approve the overall base revenue and capital position of the Arts, Sport and Public Places Portfolio. The report compared the proposed 2011/12 Revised Budget to the budget at September 2011 and detailed the budget proposals for 2012/13 and 2013/14.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Art Sport and Public Places:

 

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 Officer’s report.

 

Revenue Budgets:

b) Approve, the current year funding requests and savings, (shown in Appendix A of the Officer’s report) and the resulting revised revenue budgets for 2011/12 (shown in Table 1 of the report) for submission to the Executive.

c) Agree proposals for revenue savings and unavoidable bids, as set out in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

d) Agree proposals for bids from external or existing funding, as set out in Appendix D of the Officer’s report.

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

f) Approve the budget proposals for 2012/13 as shown in Table 2 of the Officer’s report, for submission to the Executive.

 

Capital:

g) Seek approval from the Executive to carry forward resources from 2011/12, as detailed in Appendix G of the Officer’s report, to fund re-phased capital spending.

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

i) Confirm that the items detailed in Appendix I of the Officer’s report, together with future year’s planned expenditure, be transferred to the Council’s Hold List for submission to the Executive.

j) Seek approval from the Executive to remove projects being devolved to Area Committees from the capital plan as detailed in Appendix G of the Officer’s report.

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

l) Approve the following project appraisals as detailed in Appendix K of the Officer’sreport:

K (1) Cherry Hinton Hall Grounds improvements

K (2) Coleridge Recreation Ground improvements

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As detailed in the Officer’s report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Committee received a report from the Principal Accountant regarding the Art, Sport and Public Places Budget 2012 –2013.

 

Members suggested that the tables were confusing and should have included the words appendix E at the bottom of Table 2 (Overall Budget Proposals) as a cross reference for PPF bids.

 

The discrepancy between the increased fees for mooring and other costs across the portfolio were discussed. The Green Space Manager explained that mooring costs were linked to the RPIX which was currently 5.6 percent while other rises were set at 2 percent.

 

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

 

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

 

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

N/A 

Public Speakers:

 

Lynette Gilbert on behalf of Riverside Area Residents’ Association

 

“Riverside residents welcome the recommendation to register City Council ownership of Riverside. It follows 5 years of buck-passing between City, County and Conservators. The introduction of the City’s mooring policy in January 2007 led to a mass exodus of unlicensed boats to the Riverside wall, directly opposite houses. We feel there has been a serious failure of the democratic process.

 

We would like to make two short observations and ask one question:

 

Para 3.8 indicates that the City Council owns this problem now, irrespective of whether it registers formal ownership.  The archive documents show that the city authority claimed the freehold in 1904.

The south side of Riverside is a wall, not a river-bank like the commons moorings. It has barrier railings along its full length to prevent cars and pedestrians falling into the river. These can never be safely removed. There is a sheer drop on the other side to boats below. It breaks every British Waterways safety guideline for residential mooring.

 

Para 4(e)(ii) states that consultation will “be limited to those options which the Council would be willing to consider”. What is the process for determining these consultation options, given the significant safety (hence legal liability) and financial issues here?

 

Para 3.12 refers only to a report on the future outcomes of consultation, not the options to be consulted on.”

 

Councillor Margaret Wright

Councillor Wright expressed her satisfaction that this matter was nearing a solution. She suggested this would be a historic decision. She asked that the amenity value of the area be given due consideration. The area was a unique feature of Cambridge that deserved further investment. The practical, aesthetic and access issues of the informal mooring policy needed due consideration. The costs also needed to be taken into account, including the existing cost of dealing with problems such as boats that sink.

 

Matter for Decision:

 

The County Council until recently was believed to be the owner of land at Riverside as detailed in Appendix A of the Officer’s report. However, there is now evidence to support a claim, that the City Council is in fact the riparian owner.

 

A successful claim to register an interest in/ or ownership of the land at Riverside with the Land Registry by the City Council would allow the Council to consider how it wished to manage this land and regulate any moorings or any other activities.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

        i.      Instructed officers to make a land registry application to register the land at Riverside as belonging to the City Council;

      ii.      Consult stakeholders on options relating to the management of this land at Riverside, and the possible regulation of moorings as set out at paragraph 3.11 of the report;

    iii.      Prepare a subsequent options appraisal with recommendations for the Community Services Scrutiny Committee.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

Cambridge City Council manages residential moorings on the River Cam, and over a number of years had developed a moorings policy that governs the way this service works.

 

The existing City Council Moorings Policy was approved by the Executive Councillor for Community Development and Leisure on the 24^th March 2005, and it does not cover land at Riverside.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Any decision on the future management of the land at Riverside should be informed by the views of different groups of people, who have a reasonable interest in what happens to this area as detailed in the Officer’s report. 

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Green Space Manager regarding Riparian Ownership of Mooring and a map of the area under discussion was tabled. The Green Space Manager suggested that the area was an ‘orphan’ of previous changes to local authority responsibilities.  He confirmed that the consultation would be limited to options that were financially feasible. The initial stage would be to gather knowledge and to work up options.

 

The Executive Councillor confirmed that the benefits of any changes needed to be measured against the costs. He understood resident’s frustrations over the time this matter had taken to resolve and thanked them and Councillor Wright for their work on the ownership issues.

 

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

 

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

 

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

N/A 

Matter for Decision:

 

The report detailed applications from voluntary and not for profit organisations for 2012/13 leisure funding and made recommendations for future funding.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to agree the recommendations for leisure grants to voluntary and not-for-profit organisations in 2012/13 (as set out in Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report), subject to confirmation of the Council’s 2012/13 budget in February 2012 and, in some cases, to the provision of further information from applicants.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

A report to this committee in October 2011 approved the revised:

        i.      Leisure grant priorities for 2012-14

      ii.      Funding arrangements and eligibility criteria

 

Applications had been invited in line with those new arrangements. 54 organisations had applied for funding for a total of 82 projects, services and activities.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Operations and Resources Manager regarding financial support to voluntary and not for profit organisations. She requested that members note that there were currently four significantly funded recipients of the grant funds and that this was currently under review.

 

Members requested information on how Cambridge compares with other local authorities. The Executive Councillor responded that Cambridge compares favourable and was able to sustain grant funding. However, officers were also working with organisation to assist them to find alternative funding sources. All grant applicants were allocated a named officer to work with them offering advice and signposting to alternative funding.

 

Councillor Brown asked for clarity on the style of the statue suggested for the Botanic Gardens. The Officer would investigate this outside of the meeting. 

 

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

 

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

 

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

N/A 

Matter for Decision:

 

The report requested authority to commence the preliminary stages of an EU procurement process to invite and evaluate expressions of interest for progression to tender on the full specification from July 2012 for the running of the City Councils Leisure Management portfolio for October 2013 onwards.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Art Sport and Public Places:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved:

 

To approve:

              i.      Authority for commencement of stage one of a procurement exercise to advertise a Pre Qualification Questionnaire (PQQ) to the open market place.

To note:

            ii.      The project plan and timetable for a full EU procurement exercise for the Leisure Management contract, culminating in the approval of the specification to tender at Community Services Scrutiny Committee in June 2012.  

 

          iii.      A plan for consultation with stakeholders and Councillors over relevant aspects of the specification.

           iv.      The feedback obtained from the recent survey of the Cherry Hinton Village Centre, which will inform and input into the specification.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

Leisure management has been externalised for nearly 20 years in Cambridge and the current Leisure management contract held by SLM Ltd will expire at the end of September 2013. 

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Sports and Recreation Manager regarding the Leisure Management Contract.

 

Councillor Dryden suggested that the Localism Act would allow local community groups to tender for this sort of contract and asked if the decision could be delayed to allow the time for this. The Executive Councillor responded by stating that this part of the Localism Act has not yet been brought into effect and the position on tenders by community groups was not yet clear. The existing contract had already been extended once and it would not be possible to extend it a second time.

 

In response to members’ questions, the Officer confirmed that the Village Centre was viewed primarily as a sports venue with limited community rooms. The consultation process would address the community use of the venue.

 

He further confirmed that Carbon Reduction targets would be embedded in the contract. This would be linked to management fees and would be included in the contract specifications.

 

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

 

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

 

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

N/A 

Report attached in separate agenda pack. 

Matter for Decision:

 

To agree the processes by which decisions on various matters will be taken by Area Committees from 1 April 2012, and seeks Executive Councillor approval to adopt these processes.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillors jointly resolved to:

 

(a) approve the proposed process for devolving decision making on public art, public realm, community facilities, play and open space projects funded by developer contributions as set out in the Officer’s report subject to:

 

·        extending the definition of “open spaces” from the limited definition considered at Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee on 10 October 2011 to include all open spaces;

 

(b) delegate their Executive functions to the extent necessary to implement these processes and devolve decision making to Area Committees.

 

(c) recommend Council to extend the terms of reference of Area Committees to include exercise of the delegated functions.

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health further resolved to:

 

(d) approve the proposed process for devolving decision making on Safer City grants as set out in Officer’s report subject to the amendment of the second sentence of paragraph 4.3 of the report to read:

 

·        Decisions on approval/rejection of these applications will be made by the Director of Community Services after consultation with the Chairs of Area Committees, relevant Ward Councillors and Opposition Spokes Persons as and when the applications are received and outside of Area Committees.

 

(e) delegate his Executive functions to the extent necessary to implement this process and devolve decision making to Area Committees;

 

and

 

(f) recommend Council to extend the terms of reference of area committees to include exercise of the delegated functions.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As detailed in the Officer’s report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Director of Environment regarding the recommendations to devolve decisions to area Committees.

 

The Head of Legal Services tabled the following amended recommendations:

 

AMENDED RECOMMENDATION:

 

2.1 The Executive Councillors for Arts, Sport and Public Places and for Community Development and Health are recommended to:

 

(a) approve the proposed process for devolving decision making on public art, public realm, community facilities, play and open space projects funded by developer contributions as set out in the foregoing report subject to:

 

·extending the definition of “open spaces” from the limited definition considered at Strategy and Resources Committee on 10 October 2011 to include all open spaces;

 

(b) delegate their Exectutive functions to the extent necessary to implement these processes and devolve decision making to area committees.

 

(c) recommend Council to extend the terms of reference of area committees to include exercise of the delegated functions.

 

 

2.2 The Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health is recommended to:

 

(d) approve the proposed process for devolving decision making on safer city grants as set out in foregoing report subject to the amendment of the second sentence of paragraph 4.3 of the report to read:

 

·Decisions on approval/rejection of these applications will be made by the Director of Community Services after consultation with the Chairs of Area Committees, relevant Ward Councillors and Opposition Spokes Persons as and when the applications are received and outside of Area Committees.

 

(e) delegate his Executive functions to the extent necessary to implement this process and devolve decision making to area committees;

 

and

 

(f) recommend Council to extend the terms of reference of area committees to include exercise of the delegated functions.

 

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

 

             I.      Members welcomed the amended recommendations and the clarity this added to the definition of open space.

          II.      Some members were concerned that the level of work being devolved to Area Committees was unworkable as they already had very full agendas.

       III.      Members agreed that Area Committee had evolved to have individual styles and some finished very late in the evening. However, residents do attend which is not often the case with Scrutiny Committees.

      IV.      Increasing the frequency of Area Committees was suggested.

         V.      Councillor Dryden suggested removing planning from the agenda of Area Committees as a solution.

      VI.      The costs of additional Area Committee work was questioned.

 

The Head of Community Development responded and confirmed that the learning of the North Area Pilot would be shared with other Area Committees with a view to improving community engagement. Each Area Committee had been allocated a Head of Service to facilitate improvements to the process. A further piece of work would be needed on these issues. A funding bid for a Community Engagement Worker was on-going.

 

Councillor Bick stated that the aim was to reinforce the role of Area Committees as central to the decision making process rather than a peripheral add on. Forward planning of the agendas would allow better use of both member and officer time. The Director of Environment endorsed this position and stated that this would be a different way of using existing resources. The new methodology would also be more responsive which would allow schemes to be implemented and delivered in a more timely fashion.

 

Members requested clarity on the amended paragraph 4.3 and the role of the Director of Community Services in the decision making process. The Director of Community Services stated this was a standard clause, normally only applied to out of cycle decisions. She confirmed that it was extremely rare for a Director to go against a decision of the Chair of a Committee.

 

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

 

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

 

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

N/A 

Matter for Decision:

 

To consider the draft Community Development and Health Portfolio Plan 2012/13.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to note the Community Development and Health Portfolio Plan 2012/13.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As per the Officer’s report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Executive Councillor gave a brief overview of the 2012/13 Community Development and Health Portfolio Plan. He asked members to note an amendment to add an additional vision statement to Strategic Objective 5 as follows:

 

"A city which celebrates its diversity, unites in its priority for the disadvantaged and strives for shared community wellbeing."

 

Members of the Scrutiny Committee were then invited to comment and discuss the plan.

 

Councillor Kightley asked for clarity on the North West Forum and which developments would be included in this. The Head of Community Development responded that this would present a challenge as development sites had different timelines. However, the model would be developed over a 6 months period. Successful models using a similar approach had been used in the Southern Fringe development.

 

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

 

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

N/A 

The following project appraisal has been included:

Capital Grant Application by St Paul's Centre 

Matter for Decision:

 

To approve the overall base revenue and capital position of the Community Development and Health Portfolio. The report compared the proposed 2011/12 Revised Budget to the budget at September 2011 and detailed the budget proposals for 2012/13 and 2013/14.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

Review of Charges:

 

a) Approve the proposed charges for Community Development & Health Portfolio services, as shown in Appendix B of the Officer’s report.

 

Revenue Budgets:

 

b) Approve, as amended, the current year funding requests and savings, (shown in Appendix A of the Officer’s report) and the resulting revised revenue budgets for 2011/12 (shown in Table 1 of the Officer’s report) for submission to the Executive.

c) Agree proposals for revenue savings and unavoidable bids, as set out in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

d) Agree proposals for bids from external or existing funding, as set out in the amended Appendix D of the Officer’s report.

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

f) Approve the budget proposals for 2012/13 as shown in Table 2 of the Officer’s report, for submission to the Executive.

 

Capital:

 

g) Seek approval from the Executive to carry forward resources from 2011/12, as detailed in Appendix G of the Officer’s report, to fund re-phased capital spending.

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

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 Officer’s report, to be updated for any amendments detailed in (g), (h) and (i) above.

k) Approve the following project appraisals as detailed in Appendix K of the Officer’s report:

K (1) Centre at St Paul’s – Redevelopment of the main hall

K (2) Clay Farm Community Centre (see separate Report on this agenda)

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As detailed in the Officer’s report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report for the Principal Accountant (Services) regarding the Community Development and Health portfolio. The committee noted the amendments to Appendix D of the Officer’s report (available on the website).

 

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

 

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

 

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

N/A 

Matter for Decision:

 

The report detailed applications from voluntary and not-for-profit organisations for 2012/13 community development funding and made recommendations for future funding.

 

Decision of 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 2012/13 as set out in Appendix 2 of the report, subject to confirmation of the Council’s 2012/13 budget in February 2012 and, in some cases, to the provision of further information from applicants.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As detailed in the Officers report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a Officer’s report from the Operations and Resources Manager regarding financial support to voluntary and not-for profit organisations.

 

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

 

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

 

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

N/A 

Matter for Decision:

 

The City Council is leading the partnership project to provide the new Community Centre at Clay Farm. Other partners include the Primary Care Trust, the County Council; South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridgeshire Partnerships Limited. The Clay Farm Community Centre will be a high profile sustainable building of quality design.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

        i.      Note the programme to build a new Community Centre at Clay Farm.

      ii.      Approve that a Design Team be commissioned to design and oversee the delivery of the Community Centre and that a Contractor be procured to build the Community Centre.

    iii.      Delegate authority to the Director of Customer and Community Services to sign a contract with both the Design Team and the Building Contractor in liaison with the Director of Resources and the Head of Legal Services and in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health, the Opposition Spokesperson and the Chair of the Community Services Scrutiny Committee. 

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

The Community Centre Community Centre will sit on City Council land and the City Council is therefore leading the project to deliver the building. Analysis of the phased payments and current anticipated build rate of the new homes suggest that the optimal time to complete the Community Centre will be December 2014. For this to be achieved it will be necessary to start a procurement process early in 2012.  

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Extensive discussions were held as part of the master-planning of the Southern Fringe about the need for a Community Centre to serve the new community. 

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report form the Head of Strategic Housing regarding the Clay Farm Community Centre.

 

Members asked for clarity regarding community engagement plans for both existing and incoming residents. The Head of Community Development outlined the plans his team were developing to engage both groups. Members welcomed the progress on the Community Centre which is seen as central to the new development and would be an exciting joint project offering high quality build standards.  The Council would also be working with the lead affordable housing provider to maximise their contribution to engagement.

 

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

 

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

 

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

N/A 

Matter for Decision:

 

To note the report and to approve the recommendations to the Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health from the Member Panel that has been reviewing the City Council’s Children and Young People’s Participation Service (ChYpPS). The report sets out the panel’s findings and recommendations for the future direction of the service.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to

 

              i.      Agree the mission for ChYpPS as set out in paragraph 7.1.1 of the Officer’s report.

 

            ii.      Agree that ChYpPS seek to deliver this mission by following the approach set out in paragraph 7.2.2 (a-f) of the Officer’s report.

 

          iii.      Agree that ChYpPS adopt the values set out in paragraph 7.3.1 (a-f) of the Officer’s report.

 

         iv.      Agree that ChYpPS measure success using the indicators set out in paragraphs 7.4.1 (a-e) and 7.4.2 of the Officer’s report.

 

           v.      Agree that ChYpPS be cash limited in 2013/14 and 2014/15 as set out in paragraph 7.5.1 of the Officer’s report.

 

         vi.      Agree that ChYpPS bring a draft Business Plan to Community Services Scrutiny Committee in October 2012 setting out how the service will deliver additional income and maintain capacity during 2013/14, 2014/15 and beyond.

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

To establish the future direction of the Children and Young People’s Participation Service (ChYpPS), including links with other services.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

The panel considered alternative models of provision.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from Councillor Blackhurst, Chair of the review Panel. He outlined the purpose of the review in that ChYpPS was a discretionary service and the panel needed to be satisfied that the service contributed to the wider council objectives. The panel had been impressed with the quality of the ChYpPS  staff and the projects they deliver.

 

Councillor Bick thanked the panel for their hard work and commitment in carrying out the review. The service had benefited from the review and now had a clear remit for the future.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations in the report by 9 votes to 0 (unanimously).

 

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

 

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

N/A 

Matter for Decision:

 

In order to keep the Cambridge Community Safety Plan current it is updated on an annual basis following production of a Strategic Assessment. The Executive Councillor is asked to consider the plan and endorse the chosen priorities. 

 

The recommendations in the Strategic Assessment were that the priorities of the Community Safety Plan 2012/13 should remain similar to those in the current plan, that is, reducing:

              i.      Alcohol related violent crime

            ii.      Anti-social behaviour

          iii.      Repeat victims of domestic violence

         iv.      Re-offending

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

Endorse the proposed priorities and amendments to the Community Safety Plan agreed by the Community Safety Partnership.

Rducing

              i.      Alcohol related violent crime

            ii.      Anti-social behaviour

          iii.      Repeat victims of domestic violence

         iv.      Re-offending

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

As detailed in the Officer’s report.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Not Applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Safer Communities Manager regarding the Cambridge Community Safety Plan. The Director of Customer and Community Services explained that this document wastill a draft and targets would be added when agreed.

 

The following points were raised:

              i.      Nationally crime figures had reduced due to a trend towards alternative ways of dealing with first offenders and reluctance to criminalise them.

            ii.      Police had achieved considerable successes locally, for example, a reduction in drug dealing in Petersfield.

          iii.      Closer working with venues and the use of licensing powers (based on the Cardiff Model) had achieved some success in reducing alcohol related crimes.

         iv.      Funding had been reduced. However, once the Police and Crime Commissioner was in place and the priorities agreed, bids may be submitted for additional funding.

 

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

 

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

 

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

N/A 

Matter for Decision:

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health’s remit covers the work of the emerging Shadow Health and Wellbeing Board and Cambridgeshire’s Children’s Trust. The report gave the scrutiny members a feel for the direction these partnerships were moving in.

 

The report also assessed how they were “shape-up” when the Council’s Principles of Partnership Working are applied.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health:

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Development and Health resolved to:

 

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

 

Reason for the Decision:

 

It was found that there           were strong reasons why the Council should work with these partnerships and that they are developing strong governance arrangements and are open and accessible. Both have locality groups that would provide greater accountability for local commissioning and use of resources but these were still at an early point.

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

 

Strategic partnerships in the county had been radically shaken up over the past year in response to national legislative and policy changes and a drive towards more efficient ways of working. The emerging strategic partnerships covering Cambridgeshire (and beyond) were not fully settled and still defining their roles and arrangements.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee received a report from the Community Development Manager regarding strategic Partnerships and the principles of partnership working.

 

Members expressed support for the Council engaging with partnership process and suggested that any failure to do so would be a missed opportunity.

 

Councillor Bick expressed concern that the County Council approach was limiting the opportunity for the District Councils to fully engage in the partnership process.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor for Community Services approved the recommendations.

 

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

N/A