Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda item
Report to follow
Minutes:
Matter for
Decision
The Officer’s
report reviewed the Council’s Environmental Improvement Programme (EIP),
including delivery performance, up to 2018/19; and recommends a way forward for
the extended period, 2019-21.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Streets
and Open Spaces
Agreed to:
i.
Approve
a new two year EIP, 2019-21 at current funding levels of £170,000 per annum, to
be allocated as follows:
· £70,000 per annum for
strategic, city-wide programme developed by officers and approved by the
Executive Councillor, informed by suggestions from residents and area
committees; and
· £100,000 per annum to be
apportioned based on population, for Areas to allocate to Ward Councillor/
voluntary and community sector promoted projects in accordance with proposed
eligibility criteria.
ii.
Carry
forward £170,000 of the current programme balance into 2019/20 and allocate £70,000
for strategic, city-wide programme and £100,000 (proportionate to
population) for Areas to allocate to Ward Councillor/ voluntary and community
sector promoted 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 Public Realm & Project
Delivery Team Leader.
In response to the report Councillors commented that verge protection
was an important issue. This could occur through Traffic Regulation Orders,
bollards etc.
Opposition Councillors made the following comments in response to the
report:
i.
Requested a copy of the report on verge parking
issues, which had been written but not circulated in 2018.
ii.
The water fountain on Parker’s Piece was
implemented as a trial to see if the supply of free water could be rolled out
on a larger scale. It had not been working for some time which had a negative
impact on the trial. Cambridge Water said they had offered to contribute
funding to help this and other projects, but stated they got no response from
council officers. This was an example of one of the delivery issues affecting
Environmental Improvement Programme (EIP) projects.
iii.
Took issue with transparency/scrutiny of the EIP
process set out in the Officer’s report. Requested that funding be allocated
through area committees.
iv.
Requested that real time information about EIP
projects be made available on the council website for greater transparency as
part of its digital strategy, because it was hard to get details from officers
outside of the scrutiny committee.
v.
Took issue with speed of delivery of EIP projects.
Referred to backlog of projects in Appendix B of the Officer’s report. If EIP
projects could be funded by other sources, they could go ahead and be delivered
faster.
vi.
Took issue with top slicing £70,000 out of the EIP
budget and allocating to a central pot (instead of area committees). The amount
of money available for allocation by area committees was reduced. Suggested it
was totally contrary to say funding was allocated to area committees then
retaining some for central allocation. This was not new money and should have
been allocated last year. If officers directly liaised with residents to seek
ideas for central pot projects, this would side line ward councillors and lead
to creeping centralisation.
The Public Realm & Project Delivery Team Leader said the following
in response to Members’ questions:
i.
Legislation was in place to protect grass verges.
The Highways Authority was working with the City Council to implement Traffic
Regulation Orders. Some enforcement action was contracted out.
ii.
The City Council had not sought a blanket ban on
verge parking like in London as they had specific legislation. Having a funding
pot allowed officers to look at different options in future to protect verges
such as bollards.
iii.
Tree pits were being reviewed at a strategic level
to seek economies of scale as they were expensive to implement. It was
impossible to predict what was underground and could impact on a tree pit
before digging started. It cost £2,000-3,000 to implement a tree pit, which was
10-20 times the cost of a tree. Where tree pits were implemented at less than
expected cost (eg the recent Bateman Street ones) savings could also be
generated.
iv.
Some webpages were available on the city council
website setting out EIP details. Officers were looking at ways to improve these
in future.
v.
Undertook to pass on comments about the water
fountain to Senior Asset Development Officer.
vi.
The speed of delivery for EIP projects could not be
improved by increasing (officer) resources. Some EIP projects were dependent on
factors outside of the council’s control. Projects were delivered as soon as
possible. Officers were exploring if projects on the books were still
deliverable or should be signposted to other schemes.
vii.
There was an underspend in EIP funding due to
delivery issues such as a lack of projects coming forward to use it in the
south of the city.
viii.
EIP funding was not split equally across the city,
it was awarded according to population size. Data had been updated recently but
was not available at the time of writing the committee report.
ix.
Verge parking mitigation measures were considered
by County and City Officers. It was desirable to bring these forward
expediently. A report would be presented to South Area Committee 8 April 2019.
x.
The proposed centralised funding pot would be scrutinised.
This would be a more strategic element separate to area committee allocations.
It would be scrutinised in line with Local Highway Project criteria.
xi.
£70,000 was proposed to be made available through
EIP rather than the Central Fund as per the budget already agreed by Strategy
& Resources Committee.
xii.
Area Committee projects were community led and
resource intensive to implement.
xiii.
Projects from the central pot would be led by
officers based on ideas from residents, and signed off by the Committee Chair
and Executive Councillor. These projects should be faster to deliver.
The Strategic
Director said:
xiv.
Resources needed to be focussed on where they could
be used most efficiently, as they declined. When several areas requested similar
projects, it was better to deliver them in a joined up approach through the
central pot rather than piecemeal.
xv.
Outcomes and beneficiaries would be clear. Projects
would be assessed through a robust process.
xvi.
Some ideas for central pot projects would come
through area committees. Queried if there was a way to involve ward councillors
in the process that could be included in a proposal that could be brought back
to committee for consideration in future.
Opposition
Councillors said they would feel more reassured if it could be confirmed that
central pot projects would be based on input from area committees. The central
pot could then lead to spending efficiencies. On-line details would assist
transparency.
xvii.
The report presented to committee aimed to establish
principles of how to spend EIP funding. Further details could be worked up in
future
The Executive
Councillor said:
xviii.
She was made aware there had been set aside/carry
over of underspent funding for some years. The amount of Environmental
Improvement Project funding could have been cut back, but instead it had been
decided to keep funding as it was and move the underspend into a central pot.
xix.
Wards would be kept up to date and involved on
strategic projects eg verge parking, to avoid duplication of local project
appraisals.
The Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Information about EIP was in the public domain.
This occurred through a soft launch on the digital platform. Officers were
checking links worked so customers had access to the information they wanted.
ii.
The results from various surveys was that interest
focussed on shared services at present (not EIP).
iii.
EIP staff resources were currently prioritised
towards project delivery, not getting details on-line.
Councillors requested a change to recommendation 2a.
Councillor McGerty formally proposed to amend the recommendation in the
Officer’s report as follows (amendment shown as bold text):
· £70,000 per annum for
strategic, city-wide programme developed by officers and approved by the
Executive Councillor, informed by suggestions from residents and area
committees; and
The Committee unanimously approved this amended
recommendation.
The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the
recommendations as amended.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Supporting documents: