Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Main Hall - Manor Community College. View directions
Contact: Glenn Burgess Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: Apologies were received from County Councillor Sales. |
|||||||||||||
Welcome and Introduction (including Declarations of Interest) Minutes: The Vice Chair welcomed the public and explained the format of the meeting. Declarations of Interest:
|
|||||||||||||
Community Development and Leisure Grants 2012/13 PDF 174 KB Minutes: The committee received
a report from the Grants Manager. Cambridge Music
Festival Decision: APPROVED (unanimously) a grant of £2000 Eastern Region
Roller Speed Association Decision: APPROVED (unanimously) a grant of £500 Grovebury Ladies
Club Decision: APPROVED (unanimously) a grant of £600 Rowan Humberstone
Ltd Councillor Gawthrope proposed and Councillor Pitt seconded
an increased allocation of £520.84 Decision: APPROVED (unanimously) a grant of £520.84 Chesterton Gardening
Club Decision: APPROVED (unanimously) a grant of £300 Cambridge Carbon
Footprint Decision: APPROVED (unanimously) a grant of £0 It was agreed that this application be referred for consideration for a
Sustainable City Grant as it was a better fit with the criteria. Chesterton Parent
Club (indoor soft play sessions) Decision: APPROVED (unanimously) a grant of £200 Darwin Drive Youth
Association Decision: APPROVED (unanimously) a grant of £1500 Chesterton Parent
Group (running of music
group) Decision: APPROVED (unanimously) a grant of £1000 Vie Residents
Association Decision: APPROVED (unanimously) a grant of £338 Chesterton Community
Association Decision: APPROVED (unanimously) a grant of £500 St Andrew’s Hall
Chesterton Decision: APPROVED (unanimously) a grant of £400 |
|||||||||||||
Improving engagement with young people across the city Minutes: The committee
received a verbal presentation from the Deputy Head and the Chair of Governors
of Chesterton Community College. The following points
were highlighted:
i.
The school is keen to maintain and enhance its links and communication
with the local community.
ii.
The school currently teaches 950 students.
iii.
The school is fed by four main primary schools.
iv.
Students come from a diverse community, speaking a total of 40 different
languages.
v.
The school is one of only two in the county that improve year on year.
vi.
Engagement that students undertake in the community includes: -
‘Wicked Wednesdays’ introduced with community input i.e. residents
judging the invention competition -
local residents with language skills invited to the school to assist
with learning -
ongoing liaison with the Folk Museum -
‘Making a difference in the Community Project’ which encourages
improvements to local neighbourhoods -
Christmas Party organised for Manor Care Home vii.
The school is considering making the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory
for students cycling to school. viii.
The school run Sports Centre is now hugely successful and is used by the
whole community.
ix.
As this is now seen as an outdated model, the school is reducing the
number of students it is sending to the Pupil Referral Unit (PRU). These
students are now kept on site with extra teacher support and the option of
extended school hours.
x.
‘The Student Voice Project’ allows students to: -
meet with Governors every 3 weeks to give direct feedback on lesson
plans -
be consulted on all major changes to the school -
receive funding directly from the PTA -
be involved in staff recruitment
xi.
Members of the North Area Committee were encouraged to visit the school
and meet the students. The committee
received a verbal presentation from the Head of Manor Community College. The following
points were highlighted:
i.
He is proud to be the Head Teacher and has never worked with more willing
or honest students.
ii.
Raised concern about how the school has been viewed in the past and the
negative press that it receives.
iii.
The students work hard in sometimes very challenging circumstances.
iv.
The school has half the national average of the ‘highest attaining’
students, but twice the number of the ‘lowest attaining’ students.
v.
The school has a dedicated and hard working team of teachers.
vi.
The free meal figures stand at 32%, compared to an average across the
county of 4%. vii.
The Student Leadership Team is involved in staff recruitment. viii.
The school currently teaches 420 students.
ix.
240 students receive counselling and/or extra support and 30% are on the
special needs register.
x.
Teaching assistants undertaking 1-to-1 tuition and organising family
support provides extra support.
xi.
In a recent survey 96% of the students said that they felt safe at the
school. xii.
The school deals with up to 8 police reports of domestic violence each
week. xiii.
Research states that if students are in ‘permanent trauma’ at home their
IQ drops by up to 50%. xiv.
The school works closely with the regional colleges and currently 98% of
its students go into further education or employment. xv.
The school provided a free Breakfast Club but attendance significantly
dropped with the introduction of a 50p fee. This indicates how hard things are
for some families. Members of the public asked the following questions,
as set out below: 1) Resident: Stated that their children had received
an excellent service from Manor Community College. The Head Teacher thanked them for their comments. 2) Councillor Price: Reiterated that many families
were struggling in this area and needed extra support. This comment was
noted 3) Councillor Price:
Suggested that it would have been beneficial for the students to have attended
the meeting to give their views and comments. This comment was
noted. Councillor
Todd-Jones commented that it was important to get the right setting and format
in order to engage successfully with young people. It was suggested that an
Area Committee was maybe not the right setting or format for this type of
engagement. The Deputy Head of
Chesterton Community College and the Head of Manor Community College invited members
of the Area Committee to visit the school and meet the students. 4) Resident:
Highlighted the lack of amenities in the area and suggested that the City
Council should address this issue. This comment was
noted. 5) Councillor Kerr
and resident: Raised concern that making the wearing of cycle helmets
compulsory may discourage students from cycling to school. This comment was
noted. 6) Resident: Noted
that the Chesterton Community Association had found the school very hard to
engage with in the past. It was hoped
that this meeting would be the start of better engagement between the school
and the local community. This comment was
noted. 7) Resident: Noted
that for a school to be successful in a deprived area it had to have an
excellent Head Teacher. The Manor Community College had such a teacher and was
a fantastic school. This comment was
noted. 8) Resident:
Suggested that Cambridge was a divided City and more children and parents were
becoming disenfranchised. It was noted that it takes time to build a cohesive
community and natural interaction between schools and the local community was
essential. This comment was
noted. The Vice Chair
thanked everyone for their comments and reiterated the desire of the committee
to work more closely with local schools and engage with young people. |
|||||||||||||
Meeting Demographic Pressures on Primary Schools in the North of Cambridge PDF 953 KB Minutes: The committee
received a report from the Education Officer (Children and Young People's
Services). A copy of the report is attached at appendix A. Members of the public asked the following questions, as set out below: 1) Councillor Bird: Questioned why the number of school places had not
been accurately determined before the building of the new Shirley School. The Education officer confirmed that early pre-planning work had
pre-dated the building of the new Shirley School and that a rise in birth rates
had also had an impact. 2) Resident: Asked for clarification on the consultation process. The Education Officer confirmed that officers were currently working on
the consultation timescales and further details would follow in due course. 3) Resident: Questioned how much money had been given to the Old Schools
Trust for the site in Nuffield Road and how much it was owed for using that
site instead of the infant school site. The Education Officer agreed to liaise with colleagues and provide a
detailed answer outside of the meeting. 4) Councillor
O’Reilly: Questioned what happened to children that did not have a guaranteed
school place. The Education
Officer confirmed that, to date, not a single child had failed to be found a
space. It was also noted that officers met regularly with local schools to
discuss ongoing need. 5) Resident:
Questioned what impact academy status would have on primary school places. The Education
Officer confirmed that, whilst being challenging, the role of the local
authority was veering towards commissioning schools places and not directly
providing them. Councillor Manning
confirmed that he written to the local MP on this issue and would provide the
committee with any response received. 6) Resident: Questioned
how catchment areas would be redrawn in East Chesterton. The Education
Officer confirmed that, whilst catchment areas had no legal standing, there
might be a need to revisit them as they currently bore little relation to the
location of the schools. |
|||||||||||||
Northern Corridor Area Transport Plan PDF 20 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The committee
received a report from the Head of Transport, Infrastructure Policy &
Funding. Members of the public asked the following questions, as set out below: 1) Councillor Todd-Jones: Requested further information on how the
funding process worked and future timescales. The Head of Transport,
Infrastructure Policy & Funding confirmed that the aim of S106 funding
which is allocated on the basis of the Area Corridor Plans is to help mitigate
the impacts of developments on the network. The Area Corridor Plans were
developed in conjunction with the City Council and South Cambridgeshire
District Council. It was noted that as the plans were adopted in 2003, many
schemes were already in place and that future proposed schemes would be
assessed on project selection criteria for eligibility. 2) Councillor Todd-Jones: Questioned whether any of the funding could be
used to address the issues identified in Fen Road. It was also questioned how
this related to the Community Infrastructure Levy. The Head of Transport,
Infrastructure Policy & Funding confirmed that a separate Steering Group
had been established to consider the issues identified in Fen Road, and that as
part of this work, the full range of funding options would need to be explored.
However S106 funding may not be appropriate given lack of links to development,
but that eligibility would be considered as part of the options once there is
clarity on proposals. The Head of Transport,
Infrastructure Policy & Funding confirmed that the Community Infrastructure
Levy would be a charge on new developments per square meter over a certain size
for most tyoes of new development. It would be up to local authorities to
charge and collect these payments, and the funding collected would go towards
delivering infrastructure to support the delivery of the local plan. The levy
is not currently in place within the city but that preparatory work was
underway., 3) Resident: Questioned whether any improvements could be made to
transport links on Mitchams Corner. The Programme Manager, Major Infrastructure Delivery, confirmed that this
would be looked into as part of other projects particularly proposals related
to the Better Bus Area Fund. 4) Resident: Raised concern about the area around
Carlisle Road and Chesterton Road and suggested that changes to the road
environment may make it safer. This comment was noted and would be considered as part of
wider work. 5) Resident: Requested more detail on the proposed
Chesterton Cycle Bridge and when consultation would take place. The Programme Manager, Major Infrastructure Delivery, confirmed that
these were only early stage proposals and no detailed work had yet been
undertaken. For the schemes to progress there would be a need for full planning
consent and the related public consultation. 6) Resident: Raised concern that these schemes
were being brought forward as options without any consultation with the public.
It was also noted that environmental impact assessments had not been
undertaken. The Head of Transport,
Infrastructure Policy & Funding confirmed that at this stage funding was
being sought to undertake feasibility studies on the proposed schemes. And that
if any proposals were to be progressed after this, there would be a need for full
and wide pre-application consultation on the issues and options. 7) Resident: Suggested that money should not be ring-fenced for the
Chesterton Cycle Bridge when feasibility studies had yet to be completed. This comment was noted. 8) Resident: Requested details on the cost of a feasibility study for
Chesterton Cycle Bridge. The Head of Transport,
Infrastructure Policy & Funding confirmed that the cost would be in the
region of £10,000. 9) Resident: Confirmed that proposals for a bridge had been in the Local
Plan for over five years. This comment was noted. 10) Resident: Stated that any proposal for a river crossing needed to be
integrated with the station scheme. This comment was noted. The Head of Transport,
Infrastructure Policy & Funding confirmed that members of the public would
be able to input their views through the upcoming Issues and Options
Consultation. For the Local Plans and the Transport Strategy for City and South
Cambridgeshire which are all being consulted on at the same time. |
|||||||||||||
Adjournment of meeting Due to time restrictions at the venue the Vice Chair adjourned the meeting at 10pm. It was confirmed that any submitted Open Forum questions would be responded to electronically. |
|||||||||||||
Policing and Safer Neighbourhoods PDF 165 KB Minutes: This item was not covered. |
|||||||||||||
TO CONFIRM WHAT WAS SAID (MINUTES) AT THE LAST MEETING AND WHAT WE HAVE DONE (ACTION LIST) PDF 35 KB Minutes to follow Minutes: This item was noted covered. |
|||||||||||||
YOU WANT TO KNOW (OPEN FORUM) Minutes: This item was not covered. |