Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Monthly calendar > Election results by party > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ [access the building via Peashill entrance]. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Sweeney. |
|||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meetings held on 27 January and 24 March 2022 were
approved as correct records and signed by the Chair. |
|||||||
Public Questions Minutes: The Chair advised questions submitted that could not be covered in the
time allocated would be answered by email. Antony Carpen: Re item S106 Community
Facilities Funding to The Junction, please could I ask executive councillor to
provide an update on where The Junction is, given the decision around two years
ago at https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/mgIssueHistoryHome.aspx?IId=22613&Opt=0 The Executive
Councillor for Open Spaces, Food Justice and Community Development stated that
the project was put on hold due to the pandemic and was not progressed to RIBA
stage 1 level. The Council took the decision to terminate the tender proposals
late 2021 and the Junction were kept informed of this process. The pandemic
meant that the project had been delayed for over a year, and a number of
factors came into the discussion and have informed the decision process. The Council is
now developing a Recovery Strategy to outline the vision for the City in the
future, and that, alongside the emerging Cultural Infrastructure Strategy, will
provide the strategic framework for future cultural and creative needs. When
the Council developed the project specification for the RIBA stage 1 designs,
it was timed to be able to take advantage of the Arts Council England (ACE)
major capital funding programme, and although there was no guaranteed funding
to deliver it per se, this funding stream is now no longer open as ACE
resources have had to be diverted to meet pandemic related requirements by the
Arts Council. At this stage it seems unlikely that future ACE project funds
will have a similar scale of capital investment available to them. The Council
also needs to consider its own activity and support across services in future,
in the light of the financial constraints it faces post pandemic, and with
changes in Government support. The Council
will continue to work with The Cambridge Junction as a key stakeholder to
inform and shape a wider city centre recovery plan particularly in regard to
the cultural and creative sector needs, locations and development
opportunities. The Council is still keen to support the potential for additional
development of the Cambridge Junction and continues to liaise closely with
Cambridge Junction Board and inform them of any opportunities that arise where
we can support future redevelopment, and the investment of Local S106 Community
funds proposed in the report today, is an example of that continued
relationship to provide a wider range of public facilities with partners around
the City. Martin Lucas-Smith: During the Planning
Committee meeting on 14th June 2022, it was revealed that the council has
signed a 5-year contract with the operators of the observation wheel on
Parker's Piece. The siting of a wheel for
almost half a year for five years cannot in any sense be considered
'temporary'. There is a clear public policy question here, as to whether green
spaces, so valued by many, should have long-term distracting metal structures
added to what are formally designated as open space. Does the committee agree
that this is a matter which would normally be subject to public consultation?
There is significant public debate about the appropriateness of such a
structure for such a long period of time. Has there been any public
consultation or publicly-attendable meeting about the
principle of siting a wheel on Parker's Piece? Was this decision to sign a
contract taken by any committee, and if not, why not? My questions are not about
the planning process, and I would ask members of the committee not to try to
muddy the water in commenting on that. The questions are specifically about the
public policy vs commercial objectives of the council irrespective of any
formal planning application. Cllr Copley: What was the decision
making process on the signing of a contract for the Ferris wheel on Parker’s
piece and who was consulted, and what specifically they were consulted on? A planning application to
allow an observation wheel to be sited on Parker’s Piece for the next four
summers was approved at a planning committee by councillors at a Cambridge City
Council planning meeting on Tuesday, June 14. Cambridge Independent reported
that more than 80 objections were received from members of the public, and two
Market ward councillors (Cllr Bick and Cllr Porrer) also speaking against the
proposal. However, during the
planning meeting, it came to light that a contract had already been signed by
the City Council for a five year period “Mr Sherwood said there is a
contractual agreement between the council and the applicant for a five-year
operation”. This question is not about
the planning process, but about the decision making that resulted in the
contract having already been signed for a five year period, ahead of this
planning application being approved. The timing means that the
decision had already been made (as before subject to planning permission
approval), for the wheel to be sited on Parker’s piece without any consultation
with members of the public. Furthermore, although ward councillors were
consulted on the observation in 2020, the email I have been sent a copy of
detailed the duration of the wheel being proposed as follows: “We have had an
offer of a Observation Wheel visit in 2021 for a few months”. I have seen no evidence
that ward councillors, or residents of Cambridge were consulted on what is in
practicing privatising part of Parker’s piece for much for the year for five
consecutive years. The wheel is a large imposing structure, and due to its height
and scale dissuades people from sitting near to it or in the shadow it casts,
thus it has a direct impact on a much larger area of land than the specific
footprint. A freedom of information
request has shown that the contract was then signed on 10th May 2021 with
details specified in the attached documents (both these documents are in the
public domain on whatdotheyknow website). The dates
specified were: 8th May 2021 - 19th
September 2021, and 2022 - 2025. My questions are as
follows: (NB I am not asking about
the planning application - I am asking about the contract signing which
happened well before.) b) Why does the council not
think this decision deserved to be scrutinised (for example at an Environment
and Community Scrutiny committee)? c) Were Market Ward
Councillors consulted ahead of the contract being signed, beyond the email I
have seen which specified “for a few months”? The Executive Councillor
for Open Spaces, Food Justice and Community Development replied: The use of open spaces for
increased income was agreed in the Budget Setting Report at Council February
2021 and the then Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces gave
in principal approval to enter into a contract for the Wheel in March 2021
subject to the applicant obtaining the necessary approvals/permissions. Officers had delegated powers to issue a
licence to use the Council’s open spaces.
Ward councillors had been consulted in December 2020 with no objections
or comments received to the consultation.
At all stages of the approval process the Council’s Constitution had
been followed. Mr Lucas-Smith asked a
supplementary concerning the consultation with ward councillors over the
approval for the Wheel. Cllr Copley also
queried if Ward Councillors had the opportunity to comment on a 5 year approval
rather than what originally appeared as one year (16 week) use. Accepting that nothing can be undone, Cllr
Copley asked the Executive Councillor to ensure that it is made much clearer to
relevant stakeholders, including ward councillors, what the intentions and
implications of such use of the Council’s open spaces will be prior to such decisions
being taken by an Executive Councillor or officers under delegated powers. Jean Glasberg (asked by
Wendy Blythe): Re. Minutes of the
meeting held on 24th March (Public Art Strategy) I am speaking again
on behalf of both the Federation of Cambridge Residents Association (FeCRA) and Friends of the River Cam regarding
the recommendation to allocate up to a further £150,000 to
the ‘To the River’ project in addition to the £120,000 already spent.
The focus on what would be a 'visitor attraction’ seems misguided, and
the concerns we raised at that meeting were about the environmental
impact the proposed work would have on Sheeps Green,
where the river and view are loved by many residents and visitors, and do
not need ‘enhancing’. At the meeting it was
stated that Public Art is particularly important for people from disadvantaged
communities, yet this project is planned for what is already the
most the most privileged part of the city. It was also said that
Public Art is inevitably controversial and divides public opinion, yet this
does not seem to be the case here where the overwhelming majority are opposed
to the proposals. A survey in the Cambridge
Independent found 84% against and only 16% in favour of the plan, and
a petition asking that no more money should be spent on this project now
has 538 signatures. It is clear from the comments that it is felt to
be harmful to the river and nature reserve, and that people feel this
section 106 money should be spent instead on something that would really
be of benefit to Cambridge people, particularly in less prosperous areas. Councillor Healy said
that, This is for the public ultimately to decide' and Councillor
Anna Smith assured us that ’The Council will absolutely honour the results
of the consultation’, so our question is: In the interests of
transparency and democracy will the results of that consultation and the views
expressed be made public, will the deliberations of the Art Panel
reviewing the project be open to residents, and will their
recommendation be brought back to this committee so that there is scrutiny of a
decision that involves spending so much public money? The Executive Councillor
for Open Spaces, Food Justice and Community Development replied that: The results of the
consultation will be made public and a report on the project would come back to
the scrutiny committee. Wendy Blythe – referencing
previous meeting minutes, is the vision for the Market Square civic or income
generation, noting at a market liaison forum earlier in the week officers had
mentioned work with a think tank. The Director for
Neighbourhoods and Communities replied that a internal paper had been produced
by the council’s cultural services team who lead on the council’s arts and
entertainment offer, to help inform thinking on proposals for the Market Square. The council was not working with the think
tank referred to by the questioner. Wendy Blythe asked a
supplementary which the Chair requested be submitted by email and an answer
would be provided. |
|||||||
Single Equality Scheme Annual Report 2021/22 PDF 326 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Matter for
Decision The current Single Equality
Scheme (SES) covers the period from 2021 to 2024. The council produced the SES in
order to set equality objectives and therefore to ensure transparency and
assist in the performance of its Public Sector Equality Duty (Section 149 of
the Equality Act 2010). The Officer’s report
presented information to demonstrate compliance with the Public Sector Equality
Duty by providing an update on progress in delivering key actions set out in
the SES for 2021/22. It also proposes some new actions. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Equalities, Anti-Poverty
and Wellbeing i.
Noted the progress in delivering
equalities actions during 2021/22. ii.
Approved the new actions proposed
for delivery during 2022/23 (see point 3.5 in 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 Strategy and Partnerships replied to questions from Members: Work on period poverty in 2021 had led to
sanitary products being available at all council community centres. Face to face customer interaction at the
customer service centre had reduced since re-opening compared to pre-pandemic
numbers, the officer was still awaiting the full detail from officer colleagues
and would provide it to the committee after the meeting. A number of information questions will
require clarification with officer colleagues following the meeting on consultation
on female rough sleepers, Open Spaces Forum, Ask Angela. The GRT accommodation needs assessment work
is still at a research stage, and the work is led by South Cambridgeshire
District Council and there is no date as yet for this to be presented to
Members. 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. |
|||||||
Anti-Poverty Strategy Annual Report 2022/23 PDF 414 KB Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Officer’s report
provided an update on delivery of key actions in the Council’s third
Anti-Poverty Strategy, which covers the period 2020-2023. During 2021/22 the
Council has delivered a range of planned actions to help address a range of
issues associated with poverty, including low pay, debt, food poverty, fuel
poverty, digital inclusion, skills, employment, housing affordability,
homelessness, and poor health outcomes. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Equalities, Anti-Poverty
and Wellbeing i.
Noted the progress in delivering
actions to reduce poverty in Cambridge during 2021/22. ii.
Agreed to extend the end date of
the existing Anti-Poverty Strategy from March 2023 to March 2024. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny
Considerations In response to questions, the Strategy and Partnerships Manager stated
that: Although there was no proposal to formally adopt the socio-economic duty
set out in the Equality Act 2010, the Council was already implementing many of
the steps needed to ensure that socio-economic impacts are considered as part
of the council’s decision making process as set out in the report. The Council’s equalities impact
assessment is being adapted to take into
account the socio-economic impact of the council’s policies and actions. There will be on-going updates for Members on the impact of the cost of
living crisis including the heating/housing issues which will be faced this
winter. 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. |
|||||||
Community Grants Review PDF 288 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Community Grants
priorities are reviewed periodically to ensure they remain relevant and align with
the Councils Corporate Plan and wider objectives. Similarly, the Grant
procedures are reviewed annually as part of a continuous improvement process, taking into account feedback from applicants and the
experience of the Grants Team. As reported to Environment
and Scrutiny Committee on 27th January 2022, the focus on the next Grants
Review will be to ensure it aligns with the Council’s future priorities and
outcomes as identified through the ‘Our Cambridge’ transformation programme. To enable the ‘Our
Cambridge’ work to develop and conversations with community groups to begin,
whilst at the same time allowing for continuous improvements as usual, a
two-phase Grants Review is proposed. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Equalities, Anti-Poverty
and Wellbeing i.
Approved the changes to the Community Grants programme
proposed in Phase 1 of the Community Grants Review, namely: a. The introduction of a ‘light
touch’ small grants application process for awards of £2,000 and under as set
out at point 4 of the Officer’s report. ii.
Noted the broader
review work required in Phase 2 which will be developed alongside the ‘Our
Cambridge’ transformation programme. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny
Considerations 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. |
|||||||
Biodiversity Strategy PDF 389 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision In July 2021 the Executive
Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing approved
use of a draft Biodiversity Strategy for public consultation. The Biodiversity Strategy consultation,
research and evaluations are now complete, and this report sets out the summary
of the findings in relation to the draft Biodiversity Strategy. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Food Justice and Community Development i.
Noted the stated
ambitions and approve the adoption of the Biodiversity Strategy (2022 – 2030)
and accompanying Action Plan. ii.
Allocated
responsibility for delivery and monitoring of the Action Plan to the Executive
Councillor for Environment, Climate Change and Biodiversity. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny
Considerations 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. |
|||||||
S106 Community Facilities Funding to the Junction PDF 206 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Officer’s report
proposed to provide a grant to The Junction towards its £120,000 project (which
is ready to implemented) to improve its community facilities for use by local
groups and residents beyond its function as an arts and music venue. This would
be funded primarily from specific S106 developer contributions (aimed at
mitigating the impact of development) which already stipulate improvements to
community facilities at The Junction as their purpose. The funding will provide
a range of adaptations to the ground and first floors within the J2 building at
the Junction to provide enhanced meeting areas, storage, and furniture suitable
for a range of community use activities and public use within The Junction. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Food Justice
and Community Development Allocate £113,185 of S106
community facilities funding (as detailed in financial implications in
paragraphs 4.1 to 4.3, subject to business case approval and a community use
agreement), as a grant to The Junction towards its improvement project to
provide enhanced and furnished meeting areas and associated storage space at
its J2 building. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny
Considerations 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. |
|||||||
Review Update for Future Community Development Services and Community Centres Management PDF 539 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Matter for
Decision Following decisions made by the Executive Councillor
for Communities in October 20211 and March 20222, this report sets out an
updated direction of travel for the council’s community development service,
services for children and young people, and community centres. The reviews in
each area are being undertaken as part of the council’s Our Cambridge transformation
programme. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Food Justice and Community Development i.
Noted the findings emerging from
Community Services review work. ii.
Approved the future direction of
travel and approach for community development services including priority work
with children, young people, and families, and for community centres
management. iii.
Agreed to proceed with the
consultation with staff on proposals for a staffing restructure for community
development, ChYPPS and community facilities, in accordance with the council’s
organisational change policy and, in so doing, seek to maximise opportunities
for affected staff and minimise redundancies. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny
Considerations 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. |