Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
Contact: James Goddard Committee Manager
No. | Item | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Filming of Committee Minutes: The Chair gave permission
for Mr Taylor to film the meeting. It was confirmed
with Mr Taylor that the filming would take place from
a fixed position and cease if members of the public or speakers expressed a
desire not to be filmed. Members of the public were given an opportunity to
state if they did not want to be filmed. |
||||||||||
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: No apologies were received. |
||||||||||
Declarations of Interest 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. Minutes:
|
||||||||||
To approve the minutes of the meetings held on 12th March 2013, 14th May 2013, 23rd May 2013 and 11th June 2013 as correct records. Additional documents:
Minutes: The minutes of meetings
held on 12 March, 14 May, 23 May and 11 June 2013 were approved and
signed as correct records. |
||||||||||
Public Questions Please see information at the end of the agenda Minutes: There were no public questions in this section of the meeting. Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out under
individual minute items. |
||||||||||
Petition - 20mph Speed Limit on Victoria Road for Safety Reasons A petition has been received stating the following: “Statement: We the undersigned
petition the council to have the speed limit on Victoria Road reduced from 30
mph to 20 mph. It is a narrow Victorian street with no room for cycle lanes,
and vehicles cannot pass if there is traffic coming in the opposite direction.
The pavements are very narrow, dangerously so in parts. There are no delivery
bays for vehicles and pavements are often blocked as a result. Justification: There are a number of
small Victorian streets exiting onto Victoria Road which creates additional
traffic hazards, together with the lack of crossings for pedestrians and
cyclists.” 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. Minutes: Mr Quinn presented a petition requesting a speed limit of 20 mph on
Victoria Road for safety reasons. Mr Quinn addressed the committee in support
of his petition. The Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change made the following
comments regarding the petition:
i.
Thanked Mr Quinn for submitting his petition.
ii.
The County Council policy was not to fund 20 mph
schemes, but it would allow communities to pay for schemes; so long as these
were not on class ‘A’ or ‘B’ roads.
iii.
The Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate
Change had liaised with the former County Cabinet Member (responsible for
highways), who had agreed that the City Council could make the city a 20 mph
zone except for ‘A’ and ‘B’ roads.
iv.
The Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate
Change has subsequently liaised with the current County Cabinet Member
responsible for highways, who reiterated the City Council could make the city a
20 mph zone except for ‘A’ and ‘B’ roads.
v.
Victoria Road was currently a class ‘A’ road, and
so could not be included in the main 20 mph project. Councillors noted
residents wish for a 20 mph limit in Victoria Road, so North Area Committee propose to take it forward as a separate project to the main
20 mph one. The Victoria Road 20 mph project should be taken forward in line
with the East Area one. Monitoring work was being undertaken to provide an
evidence base of need for presentation to the County Council.
vi.
It would be easier to implement a 20 mph limit in
Victoria Road if it were not an ’A’ road. The City Council is intending
to suggest to the County Council, in a response to their transport strategy
consultation, that they consider declassifying Victoria Road. This might not
happen until the remodelling of Mitcham's Corner. Mr Quinn stated that the remodelling of Mitcham’s
Corner had been proposed for some time; he hoped the 20 mph project could be
implemented before then. The Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change said that 20
mph work was not dependent on the remodelling of Mitcham’s
Corner. |
||||||||||
Presentation by Cambridge BID Limited on its Activity Since the Launch on 1st April 2013 Minutes: Public Question Ms Preston raised the following issues: i.
Referred to a
Council meeting in 2012 where members of the public were concerned that
security guards would be employed by the Grand Arcade. The Council gave
assurances that security guards would not be present on the city streets. ii.
More recently, Ms Preston had been reassured by Mr
O’Shea regarding security guard arrangements around St Andrew’s Street, but she
still expected them on the perimeter of the Grand Arcade. Ms
Preston asked if this role could be undertaken by maintenance staff. Ms Preston still had concerns about security guards on the
city streets. iii.
Queried why the
Business Improvement District (BID) report had moved from Strategy &
Resources Committee to Environment Committee. The Director of Environment said the BID
report had moved to Environment Committee due to the rearrangement of Executive
Councillor responsibilities. The Head of Tourism & City Centre
Management said the BID had committed not to have enforcement powers or
security guards. Security guards were privately hired by the Grand Arcade, not
the BID. Scrutiny
Considerations The Committee received a presentation from the BID Manager regarding the activities of Cambridge BID Limited since its launch on
1st April 2013. In response to Members’ questions the BID Chair and BID Manager said the following:
i.
Legislation set out the BID was required to pay the
City Council for services provided.
ii.
A typographical error had led to a delay in payment
of some historic invoices, but this issue had been resolved since telephone
payment details had been amended.
iii.
The BID Rapid Response Team would not duplicate the
responsibilities of the City Council Rapid Response Team, they would work in
partnership. Details of the service were being worked up based on good practice
from elsewhere.
iv.
BID Ambassadors would provide general information
plus specific BID organisation information to members of the public on request.
v.
The BID would undertake projects that others would
not find viable, these could be old and new ones. For example, Christmas
lights. The BID website had full details of projects on offer. BID Officers
offered to liaise upon request with Councillors post meeting regarding projects
offered by the BID.
vi.
The BID would cease in five years unless members
voted to continue. |
||||||||||
Decisions Taken by Executive Councillors |
||||||||||
Record of Urgent Decision taken by the Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services To note decisions taken by the Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services since the last meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Committee. Additional documents: Minutes: Matter for Decision To approve the creation of four Dog Control Orders under the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005: i. The Dogs Fouling of Land (City of Cambridge) Order 2013 ii. The Dog Exclusion (City of Cambridge) Order 2013 iii. The Dogs on Leads (City of Cambridge) Order 2013 iv. The Dogs on Lead by Direction (City of Cambridge) Order 2013 The Council proposes to use these Orders to introduce greater control of dogs in particular areas, promote responsible behaviour through the ability to ask that dogs are placed on a lead when out of control or exclude dogs from some sensitive areas. Decision of Executive Councillor
for Environmental and Waste Services Agreed to
make the following Dog Control Orders following consultation: i. The Dogs Fouling of Land (City of Cambridge) Order 2013. ii. The Dog Exclusion (City of Cambridge) Order 2013. iii. The Dogs on Leads (City of Cambridge) Order 2013. iv.
The Dogs on Lead by Direction (City of
Cambridge) Order 2013. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny Considerations Committee did not request this item for pre-scrutiny. The Director of Environment undertook to provide Councillor Owers with copies of
the report appendices post meeting. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive
Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
||||||||||
Tourist Information Centre - Air Cooling (Special Urgency) PDF 63 KB Record of Urgent Decisions taken by the Executive Councillor
for Public Places To note decisions taken by the Executive Councillor for Public Places since the last meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Committee Additional documents: Minutes: Matter for Decision The Executive Councillor was asked to approve the commencement of the Tourist Information Centre Air Cooling Project, which was already included in the Council’s Capital and Revenue Project Plan (SC573). The total cost of the project is £34,480, funded from Reserves, of which £25,000 has been approved and £9,480 is pending approval. Decision of Executive Councillor
for Public Places Approved the commencement of the project, which is already included in the Council’s Capital & Revenue Project Plan (SC573). The total cost of the project was £34,480, funded from Reserves, of which £25,000 had been approved. The Executive Councillor approved the additional funding of £9,480. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny Considerations Committee did not request this item for pre-scrutiny. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive
Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
||||||||||
Stourbridge Common Riverbank Restoration PDF 15 KB Record of Urgent Decisions taken by the Executive Councillor for Public Places To note decisions taken by the Executive Councillor for Public Places since the last meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Committee Additional documents:
Minutes: Public
Question/Comment Mr Phillips said that residents had been asking for
improvements to the common and riverbank for some time. He asked if mooring
rings for the boating community could be included in bank restoration work. Mr Phillips also said trees on Stourbridge
Common raised safety issues for river users. The Executive Councillor for Public Places noted Mr Phillip’s comments
and offered to liaise with him post meeting. She said the moorings issue would
be covered under agenda item 13 (13/36/Env). Matter for
Decision The Executive Councillor is recommended: To approve the tendering and letting of a contract for a design and
build of a river bank restoration programme at Stourbridge Common. To approve the spending of £100k in year 2013/14 To approve the preparation of future capital bids for future works along
the Stourbridge Common river bank Decision
of Executive Councillor for Public Places
i.
Approved the tendering and letting of a contract
for a design and build of a river bank restoration programme at Stourbridge
Common.
ii.
Approved the spending of £100k in year 2013/14.
iii.
Approved the preparation of future capital bids for
future works along the Stourbridge Common river bank. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny Considerations Committee did not request this item for pre-scrutiny. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive
Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
||||||||||
Rule-in of A14 Report Minutes: The Chair ruled that under 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972
the late item from the Head of Planning Services be considered despite not
being made publicly available for this committee five clear days prior to the
meeting. The reason that this document could not be deferred was that it was
impracticable to defer the decision until the next committee. |
||||||||||
Report to follow Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision Cambridge City
Council has been consulted by the Highways Agency on proposed improvements to
the A14 between Ellington and Milton. This initial stage
of public consultation runs from Monday 9 September to Sunday 13 October
2013. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change Agreed the City Council’s
proposed representations to the Highways Agency’s consultation as set out in
Appendix B 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 Head of Planning Services. The Head of Planning Services said Section 3, paragraphs 3.21, 3.22 and
Section 4.0 Financial implications of the Officer’s report contained
typographical errors. All references should be ‘Keep Cambridge Moving Fund’, not ‘Cambridgeshire’. The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Appropriate cycle route and park’n’ride site
provision should be included in the submission.
ii.
Information regarding traffic modelling was not
forthcoming, despite repeated requests. In response to Members’ questions the Head of Planning Services said contributions
to the ‘Keep Cambridge Moving Fund’ could be ringfenced from the overall A14
funding required by Central Government Councillor Owers sought clarification how composition of the County
Council could affect its policy towards infrastructure funding. The Executive
Councillor for Planning and Climate Change said the position would only become
clear after the change from cabinet to committee structure in 2014. Policy
should be unaffected in the meantime. The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 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. |
||||||||||
Cambridge Cycle Parking Project PDF 314 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Public Question Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below. 1. Councillor Bird raised the following points:
i.
Raised concern at
the loss of disabled parking spaces in the city centre.
ii.
Took issue with details
in the Officer’s report regarding demand for disabled spaces, plus the equality
impact assessments.
iii.
Suggested that
people with sight impairments would have safety concerns regarding cycle racks
as they could be obstacles (street clutter). The Project Delivery & Environment
Manager responded:
i.
Parking spaces had not been removed to date. This
decision was still to be taken by the Executive Councillor post scrutiny by
Environment Committee.
ii.
People could contact officers with questions or
concerns regarding the committee report or equality impact assessment.
iii.
Visually impaired people had responded positively
to the bike rack consultation. 2. Mr Hellawell raised the following points:
i.
Agreed that there
was a need for appropriate cycle ways and parking areas.
ii.
Raised concerns that
cyclists cycled in pedestrian areas and parked anywhere, not just in designated
areas eg chaining bikes to lamp posts. This raised safety concerns for
visually/mobility impaired people.
iii.
Asked for street
clutter (eg advert boards) to be removed from shopping areas and pavements.
iv.
Called for a bike
ban in the city centre. The Executive Councillor for Planning and
Climate Change said bicycles had been banned from the city centre in the past,
but the ban had been revoked. The County Council could be petitioned to
reinstate the ban. Matter for
Decision The project aims to provide one thousand additional secure cycle parking
spaces in the heart of the city centre. This is planned to be achieved through
the provision of:
i.
Localised on-street cycle parking throughout the
city centre where space allows and the demand for cycle parking is high.
ii.
A third undercover secure cycle park, similar to
those at Park St and Grand Arcade car parks. This report provides an appraisal
of the on-street element of the project. Feasibility work is currently underway
to look at the options for a third undercover secure cycle park. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change Financial
Recommendation
i.
Approved the commencement of the on-street cycle
parking proposals, which is already included in the Council’s Capital &
Revenue Project Plan. The total estimated cost of the on-street proposal is
£235,000 funded from the City Centre Cycle Parking Project capital allocation SC549. Procurement
Recommendations Approved the
carrying out and completion of the procurement of:
ii.
The construction of the proposed
cycle parking locations as listed in table 1.0 and detailed in the package of
drawings in Appendix C of the Officer’s report; subject to the following sites
being deferred pending further information (ie equality impact assessments and
commuted sum) being presented to a future Environment Committee for further
consideration: · Pease
Hill 014-018/000/102. · Guildhall
Street 014-018/000/103. · Kings
Parade 014-018/000/004. · Jesus
Lane 014-018/000/008. · Wheeler
Street.
iii.
Consultation approved and the
results to be presented to a future Environment Committee for the additional
new sites included in table 1.0 namely: ·
St Mary’s Street. ·
East Road. · Peas Hill/Wheeler
Street. Subject to: · The permission of
the Director of Resources being sought prior to proceeding if the quotation or
tender sum exceeds the estimated contract. · The permission
from the Executive Councillor being sought before proceeding if the value
exceeds the estimated contract by more than 15%. Reason for the Decision As 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 &
Environment Manager. The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Expressed concern
regarding the loss of city centre disabled parking spaces and the impact this
would have on members of the public wishing to use them.
ii.
Suggested the city
centre had some existing access issues for people with mobility and visual
impairments. For example, street clutter and cycling in pedestrian areas.
Increasing cycle parking provision could exacerbate these issues.
iii.
Expressed concern at the
proposed increase of cycle parking provision in heritage areas. In response to Members’ questions the Director of Environment and
Project Delivery & Environment Manager said the following:
i.
The needs of pedestrians, cyclists and motorists
needed to be balanced.
ii.
Various organisations had been included in the
parking provision consultation, including Camsight.
iii.
An old version of the equality impact assessment
was included in the agenda pack. Details have since been updated. The new
report could be circulated upon request.
iv.
The impact of advert boards on thoroughfares could
be reviewed.
v.
Disabled parking bays could be kept on Peas Hill if
cycle parking provision was reduced.
vi.
Eden Street was erroneously referred to as Elm
Street on P108 of the agenda pack. Councillors requested a change to recommendation
(ii). Councillors O’Reilly and Saunders formally proposed to amend the
following recommendation from the Officer’s report (amendments shown as bold):
ii.
(Procurement) The construction of
the proposed cycle parking locations as listed in table 1.0 and detailed in the
package of drawings in Appendix C of the Officer’s report; subject to the following sites being deferred pending further
information (ie equality impact assessments and commuted sum) being presented
to a future Environment Committee for further consideration: · Pease Hill 014-018/000/102. · Guildhall Street 014-018/000/103. · Kings Parade 014-018/000/004. · Jesus Lane 014-018/000/008. · Wheeler Street. The Committee unanimously approved this amended
recommendation. The
Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations as amended. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
||||||||||
Re-Ordering Agenda Minutes: Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chair used his
discretion to alter the order of the agenda items. However, for ease of the
reader, these minutes will follow the order of the agenda. |
||||||||||
Cambridge 20mph Project – Phase 1 Consultation Report PDF 1 MB Additional documents: Minutes: Public Questions Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below. 1. Mr Taylor raised the following points:
i.
Asked for details
about 20 mph enforcement.
ii.
Noted a summary of
responses was included in the Officer’s report, rather than responses in full.
iii.
Queried why the
Chesterton Lane area would not be made 20 mph. The Cambridge 20 mph Project Officer said that the
Association of Chief Police Officer guidance on 20 mph enforcement was being
revised. Speed awareness courses may be a new option instead of points or a
fine. Further details on the scheme were pending. The Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate
Change said:
i.
Signage was designed in consultation with the Police.
ii.
The Minister, Police & Crime Commissioner plus
Police all agreed that 20 mph speed limited should be enforced as per other
limits such as 30 mph.
iii.
Chesterton Road and Chesterton Lane residents had
not responded to the 20 mph consultation in the same way as Victoria
Road residents, so there was clearly not the same demand to be treated as a
special case despite being an A road.. 2. Mr Hall raised the following points:
i.
The Cambridge Cycle
Campaign supported the 20 mph project and enforcement of this speed limit.
ii.
Expressed concern
for the safety of cyclists using the road, plus pedestrians when cyclists were
forced to ride on the pavement.
iii.
Took issue with lack
of police enforcement of the 20 mph limit. Councillor Kightley
said the 20 mph project was a reoccurring theme at West/Central Area Committee.
He hoped that Area Committees would update residents as 20 mph schemes came
into force. The Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate
Change said the 20 mph project should help with bike safety issues. Matter for
Decision To provide infrastructure
(signs and lines) for a new 20 mph speed limit on the public highway in the
north area of the city, and to undertake public consultation activities for a
proposed similar limit in the east area of the city. The new 20mph
infrastructure would include repeater signs mounted on existing lamp columns,
and white coloured 20 mph roundel road markings.
Entry into new 20mph limits would be via entry points highlighted by larger
20mph terminal signs, roundel road markings and on more main roads, patches of coloured road surface material. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change Financial recommendation i.
Approved the commencement
of phase 1 of this scheme, which is already included in the Council’s Capital
& Revenue Project Plan. The total cost of phase 1 is £158,700 funded from
the 20mph project capital allocation SC532. Procurement recommendations ii.
Approved the carrying out
and completion of the procurement of: ·
Phase 1 Safety Audit - £4000. ·
Phase 1 traffic order making process including
street notices - £8000. ·
Implementation of Phase 1 (in line with the
roads recommended for inclusion by North Area Committee on 01/08/13, see list
below) - £131,500. ·
Phase 1 post implementation automatic traffic
count (ATC) monitoring - £3,700. ·
Phase 2 pre-consultation ATC monitoring -
£3,500. ·
Phase 2 consultation and public engagement
including exhibitions - £8,000. iii.
Subject to: ·
The permission of the Director of Resources
being sought prior to proceeding if the quotation or tender sum exceeds the
estimated contract. ·
The permission from the Executive Councillor
being sought before proceeding if the value exceeds the estimated contract by
more than 15%. Recommendations from North Area Committee iv.
Inclusion of all unclassified roads in the north
phase area. v.
Inclusion of the following C class roads:
Chesterton High Street, Green End Road, Arbury Road. vi.
Exclusion of the following C class roads: Kings
Hedges Road, Gilbert Road - For the provision of 20mph on Victoria Road (an A
class road) to be investigated and progressed. 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 Cambridge 20 mph Project
Officer. In response to Members’ questions the Cambridge 20 mph Project Officer
said the following:
i.
Cost figures in the report were estimates. These
could be revised once quotes on actual costs were received. It was anticipated
that cost estimates were higher in the report than the final figures would be.
ii.
The north area was likely to be the most expensive
phase of the project.
iii.
City and County Officers regularly liaised about
the 20 mph project. The County Council were the Highways Authority, so the
project would have to go to Cabinet to start the statutory process in October
2013.
iv.
The Cambridge 20 mph Project Officer had liaised
with Brighton & Hove Officers to learn from their experience. He would also
liaise with Islington BC officers at Councillor Tunnicliffe’s
suggestion. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations. 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. |
||||||||||
Cambridge Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) – Draft Charging Schedule PDF 147 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision The purpose of the report
was to update members on the work being undertaken to prepare a Community
Infrastructure Levy (CIL) for Cambridge and seek approval that a Draft Charging
Schedule is published for public consultation in November 2013. Consultation took place on
a Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule between 18 March and 29 April 2013. They
have influenced a Draft Charging Schedule, which must be independently examined
before it can be brought into effect. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change i.
Approved the publication of the
Cambridge Draft Charging Schedule (the Draft Charging Schedule is included
within the Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Document which is attached at
Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report) for a six-week consultation period starting
in November 2013. ii.
Approved, for publication
alongside the Draft Charging Schedule, a statement outlining how S106 policies
will be varied following the adoption of CIL. iii.
Approved, for publication
alongside the Draft Charging Schedule, a draft Reg.123 List (Appendix B of the
Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Document) which illustrates the Council’s
intention with regard to what infrastructure items will or may be funded via
CIL. iv.
Approved, for consultation
alongside the Draft Charging Schedule, a draft Instalment Policy (Appendix D of
the Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Document). v.
Agreed that, once the period of
consultation has closed and all comments collated, arrangements be made for the
Draft Charging Schedule to be subject to independent examination in accordance
with the appropriate Regulations. 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 Senior
Planning Policy Officer. In response to Members’ questions the Senior
Planning Policy Officer said the following:
i.
Consultants had advised that it was not viable to
claim CIL from hotels.
ii.
Developers appeared to have a lot of influence on
national policy. A fourth version of the charging schedule was pending.
iii.
CIL was applied only to new build properties.
Stepped increments for charges should not be required to provide a break for
small businesses as they did not traditionally go into new build premises.
iv.
Undertook to clarify for Councillor
Marchant-Daisley if interest was chargeable on the payment by instalments
policy.
v.
The CIL process was separate to the Local plan one.
It would be reviewed every three years. The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations. 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. |
||||||||||
Rouse Ball Pavilion - Project Appraisal PDF 78 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Matter for Decision Previous Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) bids in 2008,
2011 and 2012 have considered options to develop the Rouse Ball Pavilion into a
valued community asset providing a café facility, meeting space, storage for
operational use and new toilets. Bids have also considered the location, and the merits
of forging links with the Jesus Green swimming pool. The building is in a poor state of repair, both
externally and internally, and is currently providing little value to Jesus Green. Developer contributions collected for community
facilities and formal sport can be used to meet the costs of some work. A
capital bid may be required and external funding opportunities will also be
sought prior to any bid. This project reflects on the previous consultation
undertaken for the HLF bids, it also takes into consideration the previously
developed, audience development plan and business case used to support the
grant bids. Decision of Executive Councillor for Public Places i.
Instructed
Officers to consultation on a range of options for the future of the Rouse Ball
Pavilion on Jesus Green, to include the following: ·
The
refurbishment of existing pavilion. ·
The
demolition and rebuilding of the pavilion around the same location. ·
The
demolition and rebuilding of a pavilion in a new location on Jesus Green. ·
The
demolition and rebuilding of a pavilion in a location that would provide
facilities for users of both the Green and the outdoor swimming pool and retain
the kiosk in the current position. ii.
Instructed
officers to seek external funding to support options, and to prepare a project
appraisal for a future Scrutiny Committee. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny Considerations Committee did not request this item for pre-scrutiny. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive
Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
||||||||||
Riverside Moorings Consultation Findings and Options Appraisal PDF 74 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Public Questions Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below. 1. Ms Gilbert made the following points:
i.
The City Council had
muddled two issues: A) Proposing to install permanent mooring infrastructure on
the riverside. B) How to make this stretch of riverside safe.
ii.
Suggested
implementing option 3 from the Officer’s report in the short term, and option 2
in the long term.
iii.
Some stretches of
Riverside are too narrow for pavements now. The option 2 Caveat "not where
the river is narrowest" must be extended to include the further caveat
"not where the highway is narrowest". 2. Mr Brown made the following points:
i.
Suggested outside
assistance (technical expertise) would be required to undertake the feasibility
study.
ii.
Suggested a
strategic approach to look at the river as a whole should have been taken
instead of looking at one area in particular. Cambridge is not seen as
accessible to visitors.
iii.
The Local Plan did
not refer to river moorings in detail. The Streets and Open Spaces Asset Manager
referred to the Officer’s report and said that funding had been set aside for
adaption and changes to the riverside. Specialist advice would be sought where
necessary. 3. Dr Eva made the following points:
i.
Expressed concern
at the lack of progress on Riverside moorings.
ii.
He had campaigned to
get riverside railings painted for some time.
iii.
The City and County
Councils had argued over who was responsible for railings maintenance.
iv.
Dr Eva felt the City Council
had not undertaken maintenance in a timely fashion.
v.
Requested details on
a timetable for implementing work. The railings were merely one illustration of
continuing problems caused by delay to moorings work. 4. Mr Phillips made the following points:
i.
Suggested that
Cambridge needed a marina.
ii.
Requested a
feasibility study be undertaken.
iii.
Suggested specialist
input was required to undertake riverside mooring work.
iv.
Asked for details on
a timetable for implementing work (as per Dr Eva).
v.
Felt that people who
moor on the riverside should pay to do so, as per other legal mooring areas.
Boat owners undertaking maintenance work raised health and safety issues for
other river users.
vi.
Asked for details on
funding available to implement a marina feasibility study. 5. Councillor Roberts made the following points:
i.
Expressed concern
that railings were in a poor of repair and needed re-painting.
ii.
Riverside moorings
were an on-going issue.
iii.
Expressed support
for option 2 in the Officer’s report.
vii.
Supported Mr Phillip’s point that boat owners undertaking maintenance
work raised health and safety issues for other river users.
iv.
Supported Mr Phillip’s point that Riverside needed a specific mooring
area. In response to the comment that the railings
were in a poor state, the Chair asked officers to clarify the responsibility
for this aspect of maintenance. It was confirmed that this was a County Council
highways issue. Matter for
Decision The Officer’s report set
out the results of the recent consultation (Spring 2013) on exploring options
for the future management of the moorings at Riverside. The City Council has
asserted its ownership of, and registered its title to, the subsoil of
Riverside. The registration of title provided an opportunity to consider
management options for moorings at Riverside. In early 2013, Officers
carried out an assessment of the possible approaches that could be adopted at
Riverside. The appraisal was intended to assist identification of suitable
solutions for addressing the management of moorings, whilst minimising
or mitigating any adverse effects of any solution. The Council identified six
possible options for the Riverside Wall moorings. None of these has been tested
for legality, technical feasibility, or cost, as it was felt appropriate to put
all options to consultation before going to the expense of detailed feasibility
appraisal on options that might actually prove unacceptable to the public
interest. The Council expressed a
wish to consult with statutory and other bodies concerned with Riverside, and,
with boat owners, local residents, and other stakeholders, to ensure that any
final decision is informed by an appropriate range of views. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Public Places i.
Instructed Officers to carry out feasibility work on options 2 & 3
(detailed at paragraph 3.6 of the Officer’s report); and to consult on
Executive Councillor approved solutions and to report back consultation
findings to Environment Scrutiny Committee for further consideration and
decision. A verbal update is required at a future Environment Scrutiny
Committee regarding the Feasibility Study, Mooring Policy and Riverbank Policy. ii.
Agreed
not to pursue creating solutions for options 1, 4, 5 & 6 (detailed at paragraph
3.6) at this stage, or to consult on these options further. Agreed not to
discount these options completely until the outcomes of further study of
options 2 & 3 are known. 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 Streets and Open Spaces Asset
Manager. In response to Members’ questions the Streets and Open Spaces Asset
Manager said the following:
i.
The County Council were responsible for maintenance
of Riverside railings.
ii.
A feasibility study would set out how the Riverside
area could be made suitable for moorings. This may recommend a combination of
options 2 and 3 from the Officer’s report.
iii.
The feasibility study would set out how many boats
would be displaced.
iv.
Noted Councillors and members of the publics’
comments that it had taken a long time to implement work on Riverside. It had
taken some time to clarify City and County Council responsibilities. The City
Council had only owned the land for 3.5 years. It had only been in a position
to take action during this time. Councillors requested a change to recommendation (i). Councillor Owers formally
proposed to amend the following recommendation from the Officer’s report
(amendments shown as bold):
i.
Instructed Officers to carry out
feasibility work on options 2 & 3 (detailed at paragraph 3.6 of the
Officer’s report); and to consult on Executive Councillor approved solutions and
to report back consultation findings to Environment Scrutiny Committee for
further consideration and decision. A verbal update is required at a future
Environment Scrutiny Committee regarding the Feasibility Study, Mooring Policy
and Riverbank Policy. The Committee unanimously
approved this amended recommendation. The
Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations as amended. 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. |
||||||||||
Parker's Piece Lighting PDF 3 MB Minutes: Public Question Ms Steele made the following points: i.
Students had
campaigned for lighting on Parker’s Piece for circa ten years. ii.
Residents also
supported installing lighting. iii.
The City Council should
do what it can to overcome gender based violence (eg rape). The lighting would
help women in particular. Matter for
Decision The Officer’s report provided details of the proposed project to install
additional lighting columns on the two diagonal footpaths across Parker’s
Piece. A consultation took place earlier in 2013, which was responded to by
over one thousand members of the public. This informed the lighting measures
being proposed. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Public Places i.
Authorised the procurement of
specialist lighting design and
construction services for the Parker’s Piece Lighting Project, in
accordance with the City Council Contract Procedure Rules. ii.
Agreed to take the decision to
approve the final project appraisal and implementation of the Parker’s Piece
Lighting project, out of the Environment Scrutiny Committee cycle, in
consultation with the Chair and Spokes, subject to the final proposed project
cost not exceeding £60,000. 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 Project Delivery &
Environment Manager. The Committee expressed
support for lighting on Parker’s Piece. In response to Members’ questions the Project Delivery & Environment
Manager said the following:
i.
Environmental Improvement Project funding was
required to implement the lighting as County Council Highway funding could not
be rolled over from a previous financial year.
ii.
Lux light testing would be undertaken to review if
four or six light columns were appropriate.
iii.
If the light scheme proceeds, the Council would
have to make a business case to the County Council to put in an additional
power supply sufficient for the skating rink (and may be for similar people who
would prefer power to generators). The City Council would need to justify the
need for a standing charge as the additional power would not always be
required.
iv.
The Project Delivery & Environment Manager was
liaising with the Urban Conservation Team to ensure lighting column designs
were appropriate for the area, and reflected consultation comments. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations. 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. |
||||||||||
Parkers Piece Public Art Project PDF 707 KB Minutes: Matter for
Decision This project proposes to commission an artist to make a proposal for an
artwork, which celebrates the ‘Cambridge Rules’ and acknowledges the important
role that these rules played in establishing the Football Association Rules in
1863. This commission will also signify the importance of Parker’s Piece as
the birthplace of football not only within the City of Cambridge, but both
nationally and internationally. The maximum budget for this commission is £115,000, which includes
project management fees. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Public Places Financial recommendation i.
Approved the commencement of this
scheme, which is already included in the Council’s Capital & Revenue
Project Plan (PR034d). The total cost of the project is £115,000 funded from
developer contributions. Procurement recommendation ii.
Approved the carrying out and
completion of the procurement of the ‘Cambridge Rules’ Public Art Commission.
If the quotation or tender sum exceeds the estimated contract value by more than
15% the permission of the Executive Councillor and Director of Finance will be
sought prior to proceeding. 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 & Environment Manager. The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
This was an important project and the city needed
to attract high calibre artists.
ii.
Members of the public should like the piece of art
when it is finally designed/made. In response to Members’ questions the Project
Delivery & Environment Manager said the following:
i.
High calibre artists would not apply to an open tender, therefore artists would be shortlisted for
invitation to submit works of art for consideration.
ii.
Artists would be paid for the work submitted.
iii.
£115,000 was allocated as a budget for the project.
£12,000 of this was for officer costs. InSite Arts
were acting as consultants free of charge.
iv.
£9,000 had been spent on the art project to date.
This would be paid from other funds and not be charged to the project budget.
v.
Officers and the Executive Councillor for Public
Places would shortlist four pieces of art. The public would be consulted on
these items. The Executive Councillor for Public Places would make the final decision at a future Environment Scrutiny
Committee based on consultation feedback. The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 4 and on the Chair’s casting vote
to endorse the recommendations. 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. |
||||||||||
Developer Contributions: 2nd Priority - Setting Round PDF 126 KB Report to follow Minutes: Matter for
Decision Developer contributions are payments received by the council from
property owners or developers to help address the impact of greater demand for
facilities arising from development in the city. Alongside the council’s approach
to devolved decision-making for the local use of developer contributions, half
the payments from major developments are assigned to a city-wide fund. This is
for strategic projects to create or improve facilities that would benefit
residents from more than one area of the city. Following the first priority-setting round in late 2012/early 2013, the
next round is now underway. This is planning ahead for the next set of projects
to be taken forward once first round and on-going projects are completed. The Officer’s report asked the Executive Councillor to identify second
round strategic priorities for the contribution types in the Public Places
portfolio (informal open space, play provision for children & teenagers,
public art and public realm). Decision
of Executive Councillor for Public Places i.
Allocated a further £27,000 of
public art developer contributions from the city-wide fund to the ‘Cambridge
Rules’ project on Parker’s Piece. ii.
Allocated £39,000 of public realm
developer contributions from the citywide fund towards lighting for Parker’s
Piece. iii.
Noted the consultation feedback
and officer comments on other strategic project ideas for Public Places (Table
3 and Appendix C of the Officer’s report). iv.
Identified follow-up action needed
to build on the progress so far in the second priority-setting round over the
use of developer contributions, namely to return to North Area (for devolved decision-making)
those informal open space contributions from North Area that had been assigned
to the city-wide fund (in the region of £15,000-£25,000). 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. He said the report contained a typographical error on page 21 where PP7
listed ‘Jesus Green’ instead of ‘Parker’s Piece’. In response to the report, the Committee felt there should be the option
to return contributions that had been assigned to the city-wide fund for
strategic priorities back to area committees on case-by-case basis, if area
projects were in a position to go ahead and strategic projects were not. The
Committee noted this would deplete the city-wide fund and so the option should
be used with caution as returning funds to areas could stop strategic citywide
projects going ahead. In response to Members’ questions the Director of Environment and Urban
Growth Project Manager said the following:
i.
The use of developer contributions needed to be
consistent with the tests set out in official regulations (such as the CIL
Regulations).
ii.
Second round area committee short-listing reports
have generated discussions about how to make best use of the devolved funding
available. It has become clear that there is not enough funding to take forward
all the suggestions and so priorities will have to be identified.
iii.
Area Committee Chairs and others have asked whether
further funding would be available from appropriate categories in the city-wide
fund to support local priority projects. If the relevant Executive Councillors
wished to take up this option, the most appropriate way of doing so would be to
return to an area committee those contributions from that same area which
previously accrued to the city-wide fund (as part of the 50:50 split of
developer contributions from major developments permitted by the Planning
Committee). Councillors requested a change to
recommendations in the Officer’s report. Councillor Kightley formally proposed
to amend the following recommendation: iv.
Identified follow-up action needed to build on the progress so far in
the second priority-setting round over the use of developer contributions,
namely to return to North Area (for devolved
decision-making) those informal open space contributions from North Area that
had been assigned to the city-wide fund (in the region of £15,000-£25,000). The Committee unanimously approved this amended
recommendation. The Chair decided that the recommendations highlighted in the Officer’s
report and amended by (iv) above should be voted on and recorded separately: The Committee endorsed recommendation (i) by 4
votes to 3 with 1 abstention. The Committee endorsed recommendation (ii)
unanimously. The Committee endorsed recommendation (iii)
unanimously. The Committee unanimously endorsed
recommendation (iv) as amended. The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations as amended. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
||||||||||
Joint Materials Recycling Facility Procurement Process PDF 93 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision Cambridge City Council
currently has a contract for the bulking, sorting and onward processing/sale of
recyclable materials, collected from blue bins. This contract expires at the
end of November 2014. The Council needs to procure
a new contract before the current expiry date, various options have been
analysed. Officers consider that a
joint procurement with the relevant RECAP partners is likely to result in an
overall net saving for the partners and represents the best overall option. Collaborative procurement
is an important part of the Whole Systems Approach Programme agreed by the
RECAP partners, which should provide gains for all partner authorities
involved. 1.5 Work has commenced on market testing and putting together an
Invitation to Tender with a view to contract award taking place in March 2014. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services i.
Approved the
‘RECAP Partnership Charter’, as attached at Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report,
including approval of the additional Schedule 2 Governance Agreement relating
to the operation of the Joint MRF contract, commitment to participating in the
joint contract and the inclusion of kerbside recyclate materials in the
contract. ii.
Committed the Council to the
appointment of a Contractor to deliver Joint MRF services for bulking, sorting
and onward processing/sale of recyclable materials for all RECAP participating
partners, unless all participating partners agree not to appoint. iii.
Agreed delegation of authority to
the Director of Environment, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for
Environmental and Waste Services plus the Chair and Spokes of ESC, to approve
the final Invitation to Tender and to award the Contract for Cambridge City
Council. iv.
Agreed that Peterborough City
Council (as lead authority for the joint procurement exercise) will nominate,
in collaboration with and on behalf of the participating RECAP partners, a
preferred supplier for the contract of providing the services of bulking, sorting
and onward processing/sale of recyclable materials. The contract would be awarded to the
contractor who submits the Most Economically Advantageous Tender to the
partners as a whole. v.
Agreed the approach to compliance
with the Waste Framework Directive regarding source separation of recyclate, as
agreed by the RECAP Board on 4th September 2013 and as attached at Appendix 2. 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 Head
of Refuse & Environment. The Committee supported the proposal. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations. 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. |
||||||||||
Proposal for Collection of Commercial Food Waste for Composting PDF 86 KB Minutes: Public Questions Mr Roberts asked a number of questions, as set out
below:
i.
Queried how many
customers had replied to the survey, and of these, how many had expressed an
interest in the food waste collection. Officers have only received twenty seven responses so far. However from
those who have responded, a high proportion advised they produce food waste,
and more than half would be interested in the Council collecting food waste. Going forward Officers will be contacting specific establishments such
as colleges and restaurants to generate an interest in the service.
ii.
Queried how the
daily tonnage of food waste had been calculated. Sections 3.7 and 3.8 in the Officer’s report show an aspirational aim to
establish a core service which provides an indication of the level of service,
and one which will grow. Again this will relate to marketing the service and
reducing the amount of waste sent to landfill. iii.
Queried what work
had been carried out to ascertain the capacity needed to facilitate the food
waste collections. Officers see year on year reductions in commercial residual waste
tonnage. This has been encouraged by the commercial recycling collection
service which has increased year on year. A route optimisation exercise is yet
to be completed for trade waste. A half vehicle
resource would be sufficient to support a viable service. iv.
Queried if the
£30,000-£60,000 for the first 3 years was to offset the operating costs,
disposal costs and bin purchase with a small surplus at the end of year three.
Asked if this income would be lost from the general waste. It is anticipated that the growth in a food waste service will be
greater than any reduction in refuse services, as new customers will be
attracted to the business and existing customers review their service as they
determine their needs. This was the case when officers introduced the commingled
service. The base budget will not be
altered until the service has become established; hence the operational costs which
would have been covered by the residual collection charges which may be lost
have been included. The potential tonnage achievable with the available resource 50 bins x 80kg = 4 tonnes or 100 bins x 40kg = 4
tonnes etc. Matter for
Decision In the Government’s Review
of Waste Policy 2011 it identified preventing and reducing food waste sent to
landfill from commercial businesses as a priority. Unlike household premises
educational establishments and businesses are currently unable to have a segregated
food waste collection service provided by the City Council. The Council is currently
undertaking a survey of existing commercial customers and it is anticipated
that a high proportion of those responding will be interested in food waste
collections. Officers are aware that a number of customers from the education
sector have expressed an interest and it is therefore anticipated that food
waste collections would be welcomed by many of Cambridge’s business and the
education sector. It is proposed to
start a food waste service for businesses utilising existing resources with
vehicles becoming multi use. Initially the scheme is expected to be
self-financing and in the future some income forthcoming to secure the future
sustainability of the service. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services i.
Approved a food waste collection
service for businesses and educational establishments to begin in April 2014.
At this stage this service would not require any capital investment as it is
proposed to use existing vehicles which will become multi use. The scheme would
initially be self-financing. ii.
Approved that any net profit generated from the service be retained
to support vehicle and bin R & R contributions for the first 3 years, at which
point a review will be undertaken and a decision made as to the capital
required for the service as a more specialised vehicle may be required. If
capital investment is not required the money will be returned to the general
fund as a saving. 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 Head
of Refuse & Environment. In response to Members’ questions the Head of
Refuse & Environment said the following:
i.
The survey to ascertain interest in food waste
collections had been running for circa three months. Information had been
published in this time to signpost the survey.
ii.
Officers have contacted restaurants etc to show how
they could reduce food disposal costs through targeted food waste disposal
instead of using general landfill.
iii.
Higher/further education establishments and other
organisations would be approached as well as restaurants.
iv.
Cambridge BID was expected to support the food
waste disposal service.
v.
Profits from the service would be ring fenced to
grow it from scratch. Funding could be allocated to the general fund when the
service has been established (as was normal council practice). The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations. 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. |
||||||||||
Scrap Metal Act 2013 PDF 93 KB Non key item received 15 or less working days pre-committee, so automatically added to
the agenda for pre-scrutiny. Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 replaces the Scrap Metal Dealers Act
1964 and Part 1of Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001 and introduces a new licensing
regime for scrap metal and vehicle dismantling industries. The City Council will have powers to grant or refuse licences and to
revoke them if the dealer is considered to have become ‘unsuitable’. The Local Authority (Functions and Responsibilities) (England)
Regulations 2000 state in section 2 that Schedule 1 sets out the functions that
are not to be the responsibility of the executive authority. In that Schedule,
under licensing and registration functions there is reference to the power to
license scrap yards under section 1 Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. The Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964 is repealed by section 19 of the Scrap Metal Dealer's Act 2013. The 2013 Act comes into force on 1st October 2013. Reference to scrap metal dealers Act 1964 in Schedule
1 will cease to have any relevance after that date; it effectively disappears
from the Schedule, and therefore automatically falls to the Executive function
of the Council. It is therefore necessary to bring this report to the Environment
Scrutiny Committee for approval rather than Licensing Committee. A report will
go to Licensing Committee for information. It is likely that The Local Authority (Functions and Responsibilities) (England) Regulation 2000 will be updated by December 2013 to allow this
function to return to Licensing Committee, whereby a report will then be taken
to Licensing Committee for approval. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services i.
Noted the powers conferred by the
Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013. ii.
Approved the scheme of delegations
as set out in Appendix A of the Officer’s report; and referred it to Civic
Affairs Committee to amend the Constitution. iii.
Approved the fee structure as set
out in Appendix B; and for it to be reviewed on an annual basis. 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 Head
of Refuse & Environment. The Committee unanimously resolved by to endorse the recommendations. 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. |