Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Moore	18/6/E&C	Personal: Works for a small sustainable food company.
Councillor Matinelli	18/8/E&C	Personal: Indirectly receives income from Cambridge Crematorium.
Councillor Bird, Barnett, Sheil, Smart	18/9/E&C	Personal: Member of Unison.
Councillor Barnett	18/9/E&C	Personal: Works at Addenbrooke’s Hospital.
Councillor Gillespie	18/9/E&C	Personal: Volunteer at Transition Cambridge.
Councillor Martinelli	18/9/E&C	Personal: Member of BMA.
Councillors Bird &  Thittala	18/13/E&C	Personal: Member of a community group who received funding.
Councillor O’Connell	18/17/E&C	Personal and Prejudicial: Former Council appointed Trustee of Cambridge Live. Would not vote on this item or take part in the discussion.

 

For Members information, the Community Services Scrutiny Committee has been replaced by the Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee, as agreed by Council on 19 April 2018. The minutes of the previous scrutiny committee are submitted to the successor scrutiny committees for approval.

The minutes of the meetings held on 15 March and 24 May were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

 

The Community Services Scrutiny Committee has been replaced by the Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee, as agreed by Council on 19 April 2018. The minutes of the previous scrutiny committee are submitted to the successor scrutiny committees for approval.

There were no public questions.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report presented for the Environmental Services and City Centre Portfolio:

       i.          A summary of actual income and expenditure compared to the final budget for 2017/18 (outturn position).

     ii.          Revenue and capital budget variances with explanations.

   iii.          Specific requests to carry forward funding available from budget underspends into 2018/19.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre

Approved carry forward requests:

       i.          Totalling £33,330 revenue funding from 2017/18 to 2018/19, as detailed in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Carry forward requests of £1,065k capital resources from 2017/18 to 2018/19 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D of the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

In response to Councilor Smart’s question the Principal Accountant (Services) said that funding was listed under ‘rephased spend’ in Appendix D (P26) of the Officer’s report as matters sometimes stopped projects being delivered on time eg provision of vehicles by manufacturers. There were good reasons why carry forwards occurred.

 

Councillor Gillespie expressed regret that diesel refuse vehicles had been purchased instead of electric ones. The Executive Councillor said electric vehicles were desirable (in principle) but untested and double the price of diesel ones. The Council did not have the funds to purchase electric vehicles. It had offered to test an electric vehicle (new to the market) on behalf of the manufacturer.

 

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.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report responded to issues raised by Councillor Gillespie’s motion to Council on 19 April 2018, which was referred for Executive Councillor decision.  It proposed the council adopt a Sustainable Food Policy Statement, and sets out the wide range of projects, policies and initiatives in place across the council to support sustainable food and tackle food poverty.

 

The report also acknowledged the innovative work that is taking place across Cambridge to help the city become a leader in sustainable food practice. It highlighted the emergence of Cambridge Sustainable Food from the community and voluntary sector and the role it was now playing in gaining further national recognition for sustainable food work that has been carried out locally and in delivering local projects.

 

The council’s contribution was highlighted in the report, particularly around food poverty and climate change. It recommended that we now formally recognise Cambridge Sustainable Food as the lead body for sustainable food in the city and help support its work, where possible, and look at our own food practice to ensure that we, where practical, apply sustainable food principles. 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre

       i.          Recognised the role of Cambridge Sustainable Food in acting as an umbrella organisation in Cambridge that brings together a range of organisations with an interest in promoting sustainable food within the National Sustainable Food Cities Network.

     ii.          Asked officers to work with Cambridge Sustainable Food in submitting a bid to the national Sustainable Food Cities Network for their Silver Award, contributing to the action plan where appropriate.

   iii.          Adopted the Sustainable Food Policy Statement set out in draft at Appendix A of the Officer’s report.

   iv.          Undertook to report these decisions to Council at its July meeting.

 

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 Corporate Strategy.

 

The Executive Councillor said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The Council was looking at the possibility of providing drink fountains in public parks. It was working with businesses to provide free water refills where people had their own bottles in the meantime.

     ii.          There were restrictions on public water fountain use as water had to be tested to provide a regular safe service.

   iii.          Undertook to ask Officers to review what food could be sold in vending machines in council buildings to provide alternatives to unhealthy foods. Vending machines food maybe specified by contract.

 

Councillor Gillespie made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Welcomed the report in response to his motion at Council. The motion did include a proposal for a consultation, which Councillor Gillespie hoped would occur in future.

     ii.          Preferred wording as per paragraph 5.11 rather than 4.11, “where possible” allowed peopled to wriggle out of their responsibilities.

   iii.          Expressed regret the City Council could not support fair trade activities.

   iv.          The City Council should ensure event organisers did not provide single use cups.

    v.          The Sustainable Cities Network was reviewing gold and silver awards on recycling.

 

The Head of Corporate Strategy responded:

·       The Events Policy had been reviewed recently. The Council could only take action where it had the power to do so.

·       He hoped the Council received some recognition for its work on sustainable food, even if it did not get Sustainable Cities Network gold standard.

 

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.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report provided a summary of the progress and performance for the Greater Cambridge Shared Waste Service during 2017/18.

 

The principle of producing a single annual report for the shared services was agreed at committee in July 2015.

 

The overarching annual report for the Greater Cambridge Shared Services covered the Waste, Planning and Internal Audit services, but only the Waste Services falls under this Committee’s remit.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre

Noted the content 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 Strategic Director.

 

Opposition Councillors made the following comments in response to the Officer’s report:

       i.          Asked for a geographic breakdown of collection rates etc as issues generally affected limited areas.

     ii.          Asked for a review of on-line service information as it was unsatisfactory.

   iii.          Expressed concern about assisted bin collection issues and how these had occurred due to crews not being given address details.

 

The following was said in response to Members’ questions:

Strategic Director

       i.          The system implementation and customer-focused digital changes referred to in paragraph 4.2.7 of the Officer’s report were in place and being implemented now.

 

Waste and Fleet Manager

     ii.          Would investigate if future reports could give details of collection rates etc by area. There were variables that may impact on reports eg vehicles did not make collections from just one ward and recording system limitations.

   iii.          There were some problems with assisted bin collections during Q1. Issues had now been resolved. A majority of bins had been collected.

 

Executive Councillor

   iv.          The Shared Waste Service collected an average of 99.55% of bins on due day over Q2 to Q4, against a target of 99.5%.

    v.          Would pass on Councillor Gillespie’s offer to help test the new data system before it went live.

   vi.          The changes to the bin rounds had been discussed in full at Council meetings and Environment Scrutiny Committee. The Council would learn from its experience. Some issues were inevitable from a large project. This led to benefits such as fuel savings from more efficient bin rounds and greater flexibility in the service.

 

The Committee resolved by 7 votes to 1 to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report presented for the Streets and Open Spaces Portfolio:

       i.          A summary of actual income and expenditure compared to the final budget for 2017/18 (outturn position).

     ii.          Revenue and capital budget variances with explanations.

   iii.          Specific requests to carry forward funding available from budget underspends into 2018/19.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces

Approved carry forward requests:

       i.          Totalling £215,500 revenue funding from 2017/18 to 2018/19, as detailed in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Of £1,039k capital resources from 2017/18 to 2018/19 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

Councillor O’Connell sought clarification regarding underspends. The Executive Councillor undertook to liaise with Councillor O’Connell to give specific details outside of committee. There were good reasons why under spends occurred.

 

Councillor Bird expressed safety concerns about the entrance to Bramblefields nature reserve. The Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager undertook to investigate.

 

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.

Matter for Decision

Community Services Scrutiny Committee on 18 January 2018 considered a report on how the Council could mitigate the impact of development through public art. The report set out the future aspirations for public art in the City, and the need to develop a Public Art Strategy, which addresses changes to the national planning system and planning regulations, and supports the new Local Plan. Officers committed to update the Scrutiny Committee in June 2018.

 

The Officer’s report clarified our current policy position for the inclusion of public art within new development and is drafted with technical input from the Planning Policy team, set in the context of the Local Plan. It also set out the Council’s plans to:

a.    review the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which will include a separate review of the current Public Art policy;

b.    review the commissioning processes to comply with changes in the Planning system;

c.    improve future public art delivery, whether through the Planning process; or the Council’s own commissioning capital programme;

d.    develop a Public Art Strategy for the city.

 

The report to the Community Services Scrutiny Committee in January 2018, also set out the approach to the Council’s 2018 small-scale (up to £15,000) public art S106 grant-funding round, as a first step alongside possibilities for subsequent larger grants and future Council led commissions. Twenty one grant applications have been received and assessed against the agreed selection criteria. More details can be found in section 5 of this report; and on the Council’s Public Art Grants web page (www.cambridge.gov.uk/public-art-grants).

 

Officers recommended grant-funding for five of these small-scale public art projects (totalling £89k), plus earmarking funding for another two proposals (totalling £25k), that would benefit from further development. This reflects both the emphasis on focusing on high quality public art that meets the S106 selection criteria and the value of holding some public art S106 funding back to enable the Council to afford some further projects as part of its future Public Art Strategy. Paragraph 6.1 sets out the remaining availability of public art S106 funding for local projects on the basis that the recommendations are approved.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces

       i.          Supported and approved the development of a new Public Art Strategy for the city.

     ii.          Allocated the following small-scale public art S106 grants, subject to grant agreement and any other conditions set out below (see Section 5 and Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report):

a.    £15,000 grant to The Cambridge Junction for the ‘News, News, News’ project;

b.    £15,000 grant to the In Your Way Festival for the ‘Theatre as Architecture: Architecture as Theatre’ project;

c.    £14,000 grant to New International Encounter (NIE) Theatre for the ‘Tales from the Edge of Town 2070’ project;

d.    £15,000 grant to Rowan Humberstone for the ‘Ecology Sculpture at Sheep’s Green’ project; and

e.    £30,000 grant to Unison for the ‘Faith and Hope’ commemoration of the 100th anniversary of votes for women, subject to business case approval.

   iii.          Earmarked public art S106 funding for the following public art proposals (subject to review/confirmation within 12 months), which have potential but which would benefit from further development with support and advice from the Public Art Officer.

a.    £10,000 earmarked as a possible grant to Chesterton Community Association for its Chesterton Village Sign proposal;

b.    £15,000 earmarked as a possible grant to HistoryWorks for its proposal called ‘Travellers and Outsiders: Stourbridge Soundscapes Across Time’.

 

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 Development Manager, plus Public Art Officer.

 

The Public Art Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          When the Planning Officer had negotiated s106 funding the developer specified £10,000 should be allocated to Chesterton Village sign.

     ii.          Applications had to meet specific standards to receive funding. Projects such as Crowded Room (agenda P101), Nun’s Way Pavilion Mural (P104) and Transition Cambridge did not meet criteria so were not eligible for funding. Officers gave advice to applicants and signposted them to more appropriate funding sources where available.

   iii.          The Faith & Hope Project (P96) requested a budget of £30,000 as it was a large project. The focus was on the Suffrage Movement in Cambridge, not Unison who proposed the project. Unison deliberately chose sufferage colours in its branding to show solidarity, so there would be similar colours on display at the event.

 

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.

Matter for Decision

To inform the Executive Councillor and Scrutiny Committee Members of the new powers for littering from a motor vehicle that came into force on the 1st April 2018 under The Environmental Offences (Fixed Penalties) (England) Regulations 2017 (“The Regulations”), which amend sections 34A(12), 47ZB(4)(5),and 73A(2)(b) (3) & (8) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and The Littering From Vehicles Outside London (Keepers: Civil Penalties) Regulations 2018.

 

To seek authority to revise the current fixed penalty amount for littering to the new legal maximum FPN level of £150 for all littering offences and to give a discount of £90 (i.e. discounted fine value of £60) for early payment provided payment is made within 10 days of the date the FPN was issued.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces

       i.          Delegated authority to the Head of Environmental Services to introduce the new powers and to authorise the appropriate officers to issue fixed penalty notices (FPNs) under The Environmental Protection Act 1990 and The Littering From Vehicles Outside London (Keepers: Civil Penalties) Regulations 2018.

    ii.          Adopted the new legal maximum FPN level of £150 for littering offences and to give discount for early payment of £90 (i.e. discounted fine value of £60) provided payment is made within 10 days of the date the FPN was issued.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The committee made no comments in response to the report from the Enforcement Team Manager.

 

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.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report presented for the Communities Portfolio:

       i.          A summary of actual income and expenditure compared to the final budget for 2017/18 (outturn position).

     ii.          Revenue and capital budget variances with explanations.

   iii.          Specific requests to carry forward funding available from budget underspends into 2018/19.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

       i.          Approved carry forward requests of £496k capital resources from 2017/18 to 2018/19 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Approved allocation of an additional £100,000 from General Fund reserves to be made available for the Community Grants budget in 2019/20 to help fund projects delivered by the voluntary and community sector to reduce poverty.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The committee made no comments in response to the report from the Principal Accountant (Services).

 

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.

Matter for Decision

The Council produced a revised and updated Anti-Poverty Strategy for the period from April 2017 to March 2020. The Council’s Anti-Poverty Strategy aims to: improve the standard of living and daily lives of those residents in Cambridge who are currently experiencing poverty; and to help alleviate issues that can lead households on low incomes to experience financial pressures.

 

The revised Anti-Poverty Strategy sets out 5 key objectives and 57 associated actions to reduce poverty in Cambridge over the next three years. This report provides an update on progress in delivering key actions identified for 2017/18, with a particular focus on new areas of activity introduced in the strategy.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

       i.          Noted the progress in delivering actions to reduce poverty in Cambridge during 2017/18.

     ii.          Approved the inclusion of an additional action relating to Cambridge Northern Fringe East, set out at 5.2 in this report, in the Anti-Poverty Strategy action plan for 2017-2020.

 

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 Strategy and Partnerships Manager.

 

The Strategy and Partnerships Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          Some projects were targeted using data, some using officer knowledge. Officers were aware that data could become out of date where it was based on the 2011 Census and the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (it was acknowledged that income levels fluctuated in different wards).

     ii.          Actions were set out in the Anti-Poverty Strategy to trial switching existing pre-payment energy meters in Council homes to low tariff pre-payment meters provided by Robin Hood Energy when tenants vacate properties and they become void.

   iii.          The Council had considered the possibility of setting up a local energy company, but officers had been advised by Robin Hood Energy that there were not be sufficient economies of scale in the city to make a Cambridge energy company economically viable.

 

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.

Matter for Decision

A dedicated Sharing Prosperity Fund (SPF) was created in 2014 to support pilot projects which contribute to the objectives of the Anti-Poverty Strategy (APS). The current SPF process has provided a mechanism to enable the Council to allocate significant resources to anti-poverty initiatives over the past four years.

 

The Officer’s report proposed changes to the process for allocating funding to anti-poverty projects. The changes aimed to ensure that: projects continue to deliver value for money; the process is transparent and accountable; and there is clarity for officers and voluntary and community sector organisations regarding opportunities to bid for funding.

 

The Council currently awarded almost £2 million annually in grants to voluntary and community sector organisations through 9 different grant funds, including the SPF. It was proposed that over the next 12 months officers will conduct a wider review of grants processes. This would explore the potential for a single corporate grants ‘gateway’ for all grant funds and the potential for multi-year funding agreements for some VCS organisations to help support the future sustainability of the sector.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

       i.          Approved the proposed changes to the process for allocating funding to anti-poverty projects set out at 4.1 to 4.3 in this report.

     ii.          Asked officers to conduct a wider review of Council grants processes, with a particular focus on the proposals set out at 5.3 in the Officer’s report, and report back to this Scrutiny Committee with recommendations in due course.

 

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 Strategy and Partnerships Manager.

 

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

       i.          The Council currently awarded grants to voluntary and community sector organisations from a number of different grant funds. These were administered by different officers. The funds were listed on P175 of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Undertook to send details of funds (and their work) to councillors post meeting. This would include work to date and risk assessment information.

 

The Executive Councillor signposted financial implications set out in the Revenue and Capital Outturn, Carry Forwards and Significant Variances report going to July Council, plus the Mid-Term Financial strategy going to October Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee.

 

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.

Matter for Decision

In line with the arrangements agreed by the Executive Councillor on 18th January 2018, for the Community Facilities S106 funding round 2018, applications have been invited for proposals to improve community facilities in Cambridge. Eleven applications have been received and assessed against the S106 selection criteria. The Officer’s report summarised those applications and assessments and makes nine recommendations for S106 funding.

 

The Officer’s report also took stock of other S106 issues which come within the Executive Councillor’s portfolio and:

a)   reviewed community facilities and outdoor/indoor sports S106 funding already allocated to particular existing projects;

b)   considered further opportunities for allocating community facilities and outdoor sports S106 funding to projects already identified as priorities in the Council’s Community Centre Strategy and Playing Pitch Strategy.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

       i.          Agreed the following S106 Community Facility grants and funding, detailed in Section 3 and Appendices 1 and 2 of the Officer’s report, subject to:

§  planning and building control requirements satisfactorily met

§  business case approval

§  signed community grant agreement, securing appropriate community use of the facilities

§  any other conditions highlighted in the report

 

Ref	Grant	Organisation		Purpose
R1	£31,000	Cambridge Museum of Technology (Abbey)		New kitchen, accessible toilets, equipment (chairs, projector screen and speakers)
R2	£50,000	Arbury Community Centre (King’s Hedges)		Refurbishment and reconfiguration of large hall
R3	£30,000	St Clement’s Church (Market)		Platform lift and protective railings around the lift area to enable main entrance accessibility
R4	£100,000	St John's Church (Queen Edith’s)		Extension, new kitchen block, new toilet block and access, accessibility alterations front and rear entrances
R5	£24,000	Netherhall School (Queen Edith’s)		Improvements to dining hall, involving the removal of the stage and replacing the flooring increasing available area
R6	£15,000	Nightingale Community Group (Queen Edith’s)		Improvements to existing meeting hut in the community garden at Nightingale Recreation Ground, including seating, tables, serving hatch and external rain shelter with bio-diverse roof
R7	£21,000	Romsey Mill (Romsey)		Improvements to community room, kitchen, multi-purpose community hall, arts room and music studio
R8	£15,000	Empty Common Community Garden Group (Trumpington)		Wooden community meeting hut within Empty Common community garden
Ref	Funding		Organisation		Purpose
R9	All available generic S106 funding from Petersfield – circa £74,600		Cambridge City Council – funding allocation		For a Community Facility on the Mill Road depot site: contribution towards construction with any surplus funds to contribute towards the fit out and equipment for this building

 

     ii.          Increased the community facilities S106 funding contribution for the new Nightingale Avenue Recreation Ground Pavilion from £33,000 up to £150,000 towards the increased overall project budget of £425,000. This reduces the outdoor sports S106 funding allocation from £370,000 to no more than £275,000. (Detailed in Section 4 of the Officer’s report).

   iii.          Allocated up to £250,000 for increased hockey pitch provision, to be available for community use, at the Cambridge University Sports Ground, subject to community use agreement. (Detailed in Section 5 of the Officer’s report).

   iv.          Allocated up to £25,000 of indoor sports S106 funding as a grant to Netherhall School for the provision of inclusive fitness equipment for its new community gym and fitness studio. (Detailed in Section 6 of the Officer’s report).

    v.          Requested officers to review and report back to this Committee any of these S106-funded projects which do not progress to the implementation stage within 18 months.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

Councillor McGerty sought clarification about the progress of  the meeting hut in the community garden at Nightingale Recreation Ground project. He also queried if Ward Councillors were invited to community group meetings with officers. The Community, Sport & Recreation Manager said pavilion plans should be available in September/October. He undertook to liaise with Ward Councillors post committee about community group meetings.

 

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.

This item was removed from the agenda on officer advice and would be re-submitted for consideration at a future meeting.

Matter for Decision

To adopt the proposed swimming pool investment strategy to allow for the use and allocation of collected Developer S106 Contributions specifically for swimming to be assigned to projects to improve access and upgrade swimming facilities around the city.

 

To approve the release of feasibility funds to be able to do investigatory and feasibility works to look at a range of investment options to improve access and facilities at Jesus Green Lido.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

       i.          Adopted the proposed Swimming Investment Strategy in Appendix 1 to be able to allocate existing and future S106 developer contributions for swimming for the improvement of swimming opportunities across the City.

     ii.          Approved the use of up to £45,000 from the feasibility fund to do more detailed survey works and options appraisals for the development of Jesus Green Lido.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Community, Sport & Recreation Manager.

 

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

       i.          Queried if it were practicable and reasonable to heat an outdoor lido.

     ii.          Queried how pool opening hours could be extended.

   iii.          Queried if there were sufficient numbers of pools to meet demand; and if those in place were of sufficient length ie was a 50m pool required?

 

The Community, Sport & Recreation Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The feasibility strategy would look at options to extend opening hours including those at Jesus Green Lido.

     ii.          Operational details about swimming pools could be given to committee post meeting and offered to take councillors on a tour of pools such as the lido where queries could be answered eg practicalities of heating the lido.

 

The Executive Councillor added there were other heated lidos in the country.

 

   iii.          The City Council had a contract with GLL which set swimming pool opening hours.

   iv.          City Council Officers were in regular contact with the Friends of Jesus Green Lido about the pool.

 

The Executive Councillor added the Friends of Jesus Green could comment on pool matters during the feasibility study consultation period.

 

    v.          Future swimming pool demand models took into account:

·       Public and private pools.

·       Walk/cycle/drive transport links to them, and their anticipated impact was modelled.

·       A 50m pool was not necessarily required.

   vi.          Swimming pools in the City were reaching (user) capacity. Officers were looking to see if the university pool proposal could be opened up to the public or club use in future to free up capacity in other city council managed ones.

 vii.          There were designated parts of the River Cam that can be used for swimming (by confident swimmers) and other water based activities. The City Council generally discourages people from swimming in the Cam for various safety reasons.

viii.          The Appendix in the Officer’s report showed how s106 funding could be spent and some projects could be delivered before the first deadline in 2023.

 

The Committee resolved by 9 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.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION:  Appendix A of the report  relates to an item during which the public is likely to be excluded from the meeting by virtue of paragraph 3 & 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report outlined the work undertaken as scheduled with Cambridge Live, to review the organisation’s business plan and to reassess the level of funding the Council provides.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

       i.          Approved the approach outlined in paragraphs 3.6-3.10 of the Officer’s report; and

     ii.          Recommended to Council that the Council’s 2018/19 budget be revised to make an allocation of £500k from Reserves to be utilised for the purpose specified in 2.1 during 2018/9 and 2019/20 with full delegation for management of the funds assigned to the Chief Executive.

   iii.          Agreed that any variations to the contract for services with Cambridge Live and any additional legal agreements that are necessary to support the approach outlined in the report, are delegated to the Chief Executive to agree on behalf of the Council in consultation with the Executive Councillor, Chair and Spokes.

 

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 Community Services.

 

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

       i.          Valued the work of Cambridge Live but asked about management of the organisation and the support it received from the Council.

     ii.          Sought clarification why additional funding was required from the City Council if Cambridge Live’s business model was sound.

   iii.          Queried if Cambridge Live needed more scrutiny of its operations if the extra funding were granted.

 

The Head of Community Services said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The City Council had fulfilled its part in support/management of Cambridge Live.

     ii.          Funding would support Cambridge live in the next phase of its development. £500k from council reserves would be utilised as a fixed sum to do this.

   iii.          The Council sought financial and legal advice before deciding that £500k was the correct amount of funding Cambridge Live required in the next phase of its development. Referred to paragraph 3.7 of the Officer’s report that stated part of the £500k would be used by Cambridge Live to update their business plan.

 

The Chief Executive added that the confidential appendix set out in detail reasons for the funding allocation. These could not be discussed when the committee was in open session. The Council would work with Cambridge Live on a turnaround programme that had several stages. The Chief Executive would report back to committee at each stage.

 

The Council would continue to have 2 Directors on the Cambridge Live Board.

 

The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 1 to endorse the recommendations.

 

Councillor O’Connell withdrew from the meeting for this item and did not participate in the discussion or decision making.

 

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.