Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Election results by party > Declarations > Document > Agenda and minutes
Venue: This a virtual meeting and therefore there is no physical location for this meeting.. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
Note: item 9, Market Square Project Consultation Draft Vision and Concept Design - withdrawn
No. | Item | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies for Absence Minutes: No apologies were received. |
|||||||
Election of Chair and Vice-Chair Minutes: Councillor Barnett
proposed, and Councillor Collis seconded,
the nomination of Councillor Davies as Chair. Unanimously resolved that Councillor Davies be
Chair for the ensuing year. Councillor Barnett proposed, and Councillor
Davies seconded, the nomination of Councillor Collis as Vice Chair. Unanimously resolved that Councillor Collis be
Vice Chair for the ensuing year. |
|||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on Thursday 1 October 2020 were approved
as a correct record and signed by the Chair. |
|||||||
Public Questions Minutes: Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below. 1.
Raised
the following points:
i.
Queried
why agenda item 9 ‘Market Square Project: Consultation Draft Vision and
Concept Design’ had been withdrawn.
ii.
Referred
to questions circulated before committee, these had
not been answered.
iii.
Asked
where was the Draft Vision?
iv.
Believed
the City Council had not consulted people about the Market Square proposals. The Executive Councillor for Climate Change,
Environment and City Centre responded: i.
Traders were recognised as part of
the process. a.
Were included in the feasibility
study. b.
Were consulted in workshops eg
January 2020. ii.
The intention is to keep the
market in the Market Square so this option was not widely consulted upon. iii.
Some wording was used in workshops
which (with hindsight) could have been better chosen. Such as asking attendees
to keep discussions confidential. iv.
The intention was to consult on
the plan of the Market Square more widely. v.
A report would be brought to March
2021 committee. Supplementary
question. Re-iterated:
i.
Request for earlier questions to
be answered.
ii.
Traders had not been consulted.
iii.
Concept designs were unrealistic. The Executive
Councillor responded:
i.
Undertook to respond to questions
after today’s committee.
ii.
Would discuss with officers what
could be updated to better undertake future workshops. 2. Raised the following points:
i.
The
market was an ancient footprint on a modern city.
ii.
It
was fragile and needed to be supported ie businesses helped to survive,
particularly during lockdown due to Covid.
iii.
Asked
councillors to liaise with traders to show support during work on the Market
Square. The Executive
Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre responded:
i.
Would advise (Ward) Councillors
that market traders wanted to speak to them.
ii.
Accepted somethings could be
handled better such as the closure of the Market Square.
iii.
Councillors and traders wanted the
same thing. |
|||||||
Minutes: Public Question A member of the public asked a question as set
out below. 1.
Raised
the following points:
i.
Queried
why there had been no consultation on the Market Square vision.
ii.
Queried
if proposals were suitable for the area.
iii.
Referred
to the petition on the Market Square.
iv.
Expressed
concern that workshop participants were not allowed to discuss what they heard
outside of workshops due to ‘Chatham House rules’. The Executive Councillor for Climate Change,
Environment and City Centre responded:
i.
The use of ‘Chatham House rules’ in workshops would be
reviewed in future.
ii.
History of Market Square project (funding): a.
A bid for funding was made to the Combined
Authority Board. b.
The project to upgrade the market started. c.
The Combined Authority Board did not want to
support a long term project, preferring shorter term ones such as installing
seating for restaurants on the pavement. d.
The City Council changed its funding bid and was
successful.
iii.
The project is to upgrade the Market Square so it
has improved facilities to host a market seven days a week.
iv.
Communications about the market would be reviewed
in future.
v.
The concept design would be consulted upon later in
2021. Supplementary question: i.
Were traders
equal partners with the City Council on plans for the market? ii.
What support would be offered to
the market and traders? iii.
The project appeared to have
changed without input from the public. The Executive Councillor responded: i.
The Council could have been more
careful in its language. The language used in future communications would be
reviewed to avoid misunderstandings and ensure communications were clearer. ii.
Re-iterated the proposal is to
develop the Market Square to facilitate hosting a market seven days a week, and
to have a better area to hold it in. Matter for
Decision The decision was noted. |
|||||||
ROD Closure of the City Centre Market PDF 114 KB Minutes: Public Question Members of the public asked a number of
questions, as set out below. 1.
Raised
the following points:
i.
Would
the City Council guarantee continuity of business for the existing market
traders throughout the proposed re-development of Cambridge market?
ii.
Continuity
of business required an excellent, transparent and direct communication between
Council and market traders to create the trust needed to succeed.
iii.
Would
the City Council commit to driving this communication throughout the entire
process; from requirements to an improved operational market?
iv.
The
Change.org petition to re-open the market clearly demonstrated the breadth and
depth of support for essential food supplies being traded on the Market Square.
v.
A
recurring theme in the comments and stated by the traders to their customers
was that communication with the City Council needed to be much more direct,
frequent and more open. The Executive Councillor for Climate Change,
Environment and City Centre responded: i.
The Market Square was closed (for
a short period of time) due to public health concerns in lockdown otherwise the
aim was to keep it open. ii.
It was still unconfirmed where the
market would trade whilst work was being undertaken on the Market Square. iii.
Some essential maintenance was
required in the Market Square (eg electrics) even if the project did not go
ahead. Supplementary question: i.
Re-iterated request for better
communication to keep traders informed of actions/activities relating to the
Market Square. 2.
Asked
for clarification on how/why the Market Square was closed. The Strategic Director responded: i.
She made the decision to close the
Market
Square as Strategic Director following a meeting with City Council and Public
Health Officers. ii.
She took advice from the Deputy Director of Public Health at a meeting,
then followed this up with the Director of Public Health via email. The
Strategic Director discussed her proposal with the Executive Councillor for
Climate Change, Environment and City Centre then took the decision to close the
Market Square and made a press release setting out the reasons for doing so. iii.
The situation had now changed so
the Market Square was re-opened. iv.
The decision had been made in-line
with council processes and published on the City Council website. v.
The decision was made on information (including picture) supplied from City Council and
Public Health Officers regarding overcrowding in the Market Square. Supplementary question: i.
Reasons for the decision to close
the Market Square should be made public. ii.
There was a suspicion the decision
was made on anecdotal evidence not the real situation. 3.
Raised
the following points:
i.
Referred
to the Change.org petition to re-open the market.
ii.
Express
shock that only two days notice was given for the
Market Square closure.
iii.
Expresses
concern: a.
At
the information traders were given about the reasons for market closure. b.
Private
organisations facing onto the Market Square (eg
Sainsbury’s) could remain open whereas market traders could not. c.
Lack
of communication between the city council and traders about how to operate in
lockdown.
iv.
Queried
how the relations between City Council Officers, market customers and traders
could be improved. The Strategic Director responded: i.
Covid
levels were rising when the decision was taken to close the Market Square.
People were not following social distance regulations so public health advice
was to close the Market Square. ii.
The City Council worked closely
with traders and partner organisations. iii.
Accepted there was a negative
impact on traders from the market closure. iv.
The City Council offered support
to traders. Please see agenda item 6 report for details. Traders were
encouraged to claim support on offer from various schemes operated by the City
Council on behalf of Central Government. v.
The Market Square was quickly re-opened
with the support of Public Health. vi.
The public had faith in the
market, they may choose not to visit at present. vii.
Traders had developed various ways
to support customers who did not visit the market eg making deliveries. Supplementary question: i.
Stated it was safe to shop
outdoors. ii.
Disagreed that the market was
responsible for increasing Covid infections in the
city. iii.
Took issue with the fencing and marshalling around the market. The Strategic Director responded: i.
Agreed the market did not directly
cause Covid. Anywhere where people came into close proximity when Covid levels
were rising was a concern as infection levels were spreading. ii.
The Council could not control
private premises but could control its own areas eg the Market Square. iii.
Fencing and marshalling around the
Market Square was being reviewed alongside public health advice. 4.
Raised
the following points:
i.
Had
received no response to earlier questions.
ii.
City
Covid levels were below the national average.
iii.
It
was harder to catch Covid in the open air than in an
enclosed space.
iv.
Closing
the market forced people to shop indoors in supermarkets etc.
v.
People
were not consulted on the market closure. a.
There
were limited communications between the City Council and traders. b.
A
transparent consultation process was required in future regarding any possible
market closures.
vi.
Marshalling
around the market was ineffective. The Strategic Director noted the comments. 5.
Only
a limited number of traders were allowed to operate on
the market. Queried when others could return. The Head of Environmental Services responded:
i.
The City Council was working with Cambridge Market
Traders Association on how to operate now and in the future, to give traders as
much notice as possible.
ii.
Officers were working on a plan to maximise the number
of traders who could operate in current lockdown conditions. Not all traders
could be accommodated in the Market Square so satellite sites/locations were
being considered. Supplementary question:
i.
Requested better communication with traders on when
they could come back. The Strategic Director responded:
i.
City Council Officers tried to contact all traders by phone before making a press
release about closing the market.
ii.
The City Council was meeting with trader
representatives to pass on information.
iii.
Actions taken were dependent on advice from Public
Health colleagues.
iv.
Communication with traders would be reviewed in
future. 6.
Raised the following
points:
i.
The Market Square felt like a prison. This was
unacceptable.
ii.
Took issue with the reasons given for closing the
market.
iii.
Requested a statement from the City Council that it
was safer to shop outdoors than indoors.
iv.
Re-iterated this was a historic market. The Executive Councillor for Climate Change,
Environment and City Centre responded:
i.
The intention was not to make the Market Square
feel like a prison. The City Council was liaising with traders about the
fencing and some had been removed.
ii.
The ‘demountable’ stalls that traders disliked
would be replaced. Details would be shared with traders once a prototype had
been developed. Details were set out in (former) agenda item 9 report. Supplementary question:
i.
Took issue with proposal for new market stalls.
ii.
Re-iterated request for a statement from the City
Council that it was safer to shop outdoors than indoors 7.
Councillor Porrer raised the following points:
i.
Expressed concern about the lack of consultation on
the Market Square closure.
ii.
Traders had expressed concern about the lack of
communication about support available.
iii.
Referred to Liberal Democrat and Change.org
petitions about the market.
iv.
Welcomed more Covid
Marshalls but requested they treated the situation carefully as public
perception needed to be sensitively managed.
v.
Asked the Executive Councillor to reassure Market
Ward Councillors the situation would be resolved as soon as possible. The Executive Councillor for Climate Change,
Environment and City Centre responded:
i.
The decision to close the Market Square was taken
as an urgent decision due to the perception of public risk, so there was no
time to consult people. The process will be reviewed and lessons learnt on how
to improve the process in future.
ii.
The Executive Councillor did not specifically
release a communication the Market Square was re-opened as she had confidence
in officers’ actions.
iii.
The Executive Councillor had received a lot of
correspondence so was unable to respond to it all.
iv.
She would learn lessons from this experience and
work closely with Ward Councillors in future regarding communication. Matter for
Decision The decision was noted. |
|||||||
Review of Use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act PDF 190 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Matter for
Decision A Code of Practice
introduced in April 2010 recommends that Councillors should review their
authority’s use of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and
set its general surveillance policy at least once a year. The Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety and
Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee last considered these matters on
the 16 January 2020. The City Council has not
used surveillance or other investigatory powers regulated by RIPA
since February 2010. The Officer’s report set
out the Council’s use of RIPA and the present surveillance policy. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Transport and Community
Safety i.
Reviewed the Council’s use of RIPA
set out in paragraph 3.5 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 made no comments in response to the report from the
Officer. 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. |
|||||||
Market Square Project: Consultation Draft Vision and Concept Design PDF 153 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Council received a written challenge that it failed to follow its legal obligations under the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Meetings and Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2012, in relation to a report referred to in Appendix A (Market Square Project Concept Design) of the above agenda item. The basis of the challenge is that this report should have been made available as a background document to the agenda item. The report referred to in Appendix A of the agenda item relates to an assessment, currently being undertaken by consultants, of how the associated capital and revenue investment needs of the Project could be met; and how the operational management of the outdoor market could be improved through the Project. At the time of agreeing the current agenda item, this outstanding consultancy work was assessed by officers as not being directly material to the Consultation Draft Vision and Concept Design agenda item. The officer’s plan was to bring it to the July 2021 Scrutiny Committee, as part of the agenda item reporting back on the concept design consultation and, subject to the outcome, the adoption of the recommended design/ plan to go forward to the detailed design stage of the Project. In the interests of maintaining openness and transparency, officers have reviewed whether or not to proceed with the current agenda item, and have taken the decision to temporarily withdraw it, pending completion and sign off of the consultant’s report referred to in appendix A. Officers aim to bring this item back, together with the additional background report, to Scrutiny Committee on 25th March 2021. The Council apologises for any inconvenience or disappointment caused by having to make this late deferral decision. |
|||||||
Developing a Litter Strategy for the City PDF 227 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Officer’s report made recommendations on the development of a Litter
Strategy for Cambridge City. The Strategy would comprise of four key parts:
i.
A strategic vision including a set of principles
and policies.
iii.
A review of current and potential future
behavioural change activities, including awareness raising, education and
enforcement, to help deliver the Strategy.
iv.
An action plan which sets out a phased programme of
activity to deliver the Strategy.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Climate Change,
Environment and City Centre
i.
Supported the development of a litter strategy for Cambridge
as outlined in the report.
a.
The programme of work to achieve the Strategy as set out in
the Project Initiation Document (appendix A) subject to approval by Business
Transformation Board. b.
The use of community and stakeholder engagement and c.
Research to support the development of the Strategy. 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. The Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager said the following in
response to Members’ questions:
i.
The Strategy would introduce new recycling
initiatives.
ii.
There was no data at present on where bins would be
located or how often they would be emptied. The intention was to look at where
efficiencies could be gained based on consultation feedback. The Executive Councillor welcomed
recommendations on bin locations and litter hot spots from the public. 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. |
|||||||
Public Art Commission and Strategy PDF 175 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Executive Councillor asked the
committee to note the death of a member of the public art panel. Matter for
Decision In June 2018, Environment and Community Services Scrutiny
Committee considered a report that set out the future aspirations for public
art in the City, and the need to update the Public Art Supplementary Planning
Document (SPD), in light of changes to the national planning system and
planning regulations, and to support the new Local Plan. The report included
the requirement to undertake an evaluation process and have a ‘Big
conversation’[1] about public art to inform future Policy
work. Following a process of evaluation
through 2019/20, the Officer’s report sets the direction of travel to develop a
Public Art Strategy (Strategy) for Cambridge and makes recommendations on the
process and methodology required to ensure that Cambridge continues to be at
the forefront of public art commissioning and delivery. The Officer’s report set out the
work that has been undertaken so far, and the work to be completed to secure
the Strategy and future policy for public art provision in Cambridge. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Communities
i.
Supported the use of the draft Manifesto
for public art in Cambridge and the process set out in the report for
researching and developing new public art policy.
ii.
Approved: a. The process
for taking the work forward, including the formation of a cross departmental
Working Group. b. The
Terms of Reference for the Working Group set out at 4.2. c. The use
of consultation and research through events and a public survey, to test the
draft manifesto and support the development of Policy. 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. The Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager said the following in
response to Members’ questions:
i.
Officers could revisit the manifesto text to
clarify links between public art, health benefits and biodiversity.
ii.
An Equality Impact Assessment will be undertaken on
artists. Procurement rules can be used
to focus on people with the required characteristics such as able to represent
the local community. 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 2021-22 PDF 190 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Matter for
Decision This was the annual report
for the Community Grants fund for voluntary, community, and not for profit organisations. It provided an overview of the process,
eligibility criteria and budget in Section 3 and Appendix 1 detailed the
applications received with recommendations for 2021-22 awards. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Communities i.
Approved the Community Grants to voluntary and community
organisations for 2021-22, as set out in Appendix 1 of this report, subject to
the budget approval in February 2021 and any further satisfactory information
required of applicant organisations.
a. £15,000 – Cambridge Online
(devices and data). b. £10,000 – Cambridge
Sustainable Food (hygiene and food supplies). c. £20,000 – Cambridgeshire
Community Foundation (Coronavirus Fund donation for City projects). 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. The Community Funding and Development Manager said the following in
response to Members’ questions:
i.
Community grants were not specifically aimed at
supporting projects that supported biodiversity. Projects may impact indirectly
on environmental policy. Grants were awarded to projects that met assessment
criteria. The Community Funding and Development Manager offered to liaise with
Councillors about this after the committee.
ii.
Officers actively monitored groups, funding
applications and what funding could be given to support projects that would make a difference for residents.
The intention was to provide maximum flexibility in awarding grants.
iii.
Officers worked with other teams to provide a
joined up signpost on what funding was available so people could be directed to
apply to another stream if one was unsuitable. The Committee resolved by 7 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations. Councillor Hadley did not take part in the vote. 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. |
|||||||
Use of the Anti-Poverty Responsive Budget PDF 147 KB Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Officer’s report
recommended extending the scope of the council’s Anti-Poverty Responsive Budget
to include projects delivered by community groups as well as those delivered or
managed by council services. This would represent a change from the criteria
agreed when the fund was proposed in a committee report in June 2018. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Communities Agreed that the
council’s Anti-Poverty Responsive Budget can be used for community-led as well
as council-led projects that help deliver the objectives of the Anti-Poverty
Strategy. 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 Head of Corporate Strategy said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
The budget process set
out if funding was allocated to support projects or not. The Officer’s report
set out how it would be used if so.
ii.
The funding, if
allocated through the Budget-Setting Report would effectively be held in
reserve in case it were needed. 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. |
|||||||
Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic on BAME Communities in Cambridge During 2020 PDF 503 KB Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Council passed a motion
on 16 July 2020 in support of Black Lives Matter. One of the actions identified
in the motion was to: “Request from the Director of Public Health a report on
the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on BAME communities in Cambridge by the end
of 2020, to be reviewed in the Environment and Community scrutiny committee,
and shared with BAME community representatives.” The report from Public Health
is attached as Appendix A to the Officer’s report. In addition, the Officer’s
report provided details around how Cambridge City Council has been supporting
Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic communities in 2020 during the coronavirus
pandemic, especially relating to sharing Public Health messaging through
community leaders. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Communities Noted the content of the Officer’s report and Appendix A. 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 Equality & Anti-Poverty
Officer. The Director of Public Health said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Public Health see
vaccination take-up as a key priority in overall control of Covid and are
offering support to the NHS that is leading on the vaccination work.
ii.
There is indication of
vaccination hesitance for different groups in the community, especially some
BAME groups. iii.
Since the start of the pandemic, Public Health
has worked closely with the network of district and city councils across
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough to develop links with a range of community
leaders trusted by different ethnic minority communities. Where there have been
updates to Public Health messaging this has been co-produced with residents.
For instance, there have been video blogs produced in different languages and
read by community leaders.
iv.
Referred the committee
to weekly Covid-19 Gold Group updates on the Covid situation in the city.
Suggested councillors liaised with the Strategic Director (who sat on Covid
Gold Group) and council officers to pass on ‘soft’ data on how best can work
together to help engage different communities in the take-up of vaccinations. The Committee unanimously resolved 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. |
|||||||
Update on the Work of Key External Partnerships PDF 266 KB Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Officer’s report
provided an update on the work of the Health and Wellbeing Board and Cambridge
Community Safety Partnership as a part of the Council’s commitment given in its
“Principles of Partnership Working”. The rise of the pandemic
this year has disrupted some of the planned activity of the partnerships to
allow the wider systems to focus on the immediate priorities of responding to
the pandemic and planning for future recovery and resilience. During this time
partnership working both with other public agencies and local communities has
become more important than ever as new arrangements and ways of working have
emerged. This report, however, looks at the business of the partnerships in
question and does not look to
these wider partnership arrangements, which have been the subject of other
papers to members. Decision
of Executive Councillors
i.
The Executive Councillor for
Communities agreed to continue to work with the Cambridgeshire Health and Wellbeing
Board and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Joint Committees to ensure that
public agencies and others can come together to address the strategic issues
affecting Cambridge City, and that the concerns of citizens are heard.
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 Head
of Corporate Strategy. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations. The Executive Councillors
approved their recommendations. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillors (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillors. |