Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report covered the draft Public Places Portfolio Plan 2014-15, which sets out the strategic objectives for the portfolio for the year ahead, describes the context in which the portfolio was being delivered and detailed the activities required to deliver the outcomes and the vision. Performance measures and risks were also shown for each strategic objective.

 

The Executive Councillor for Public Places stated the report introduction had been amended to include references to the Bereavement Service. These details were added to the report after publication due to a change in Executive Councillor Portfolios.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Public Places

Approved the draft Public Places Portfolio Plan 2014-15.

 

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 Interim Head of Services, Streets and Open Spaces; introduced by the Executive Councillor for Public Places.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Executive Councillor for Public Places said the following:

Strategic Objective 1.4

       i.          The local nature reserve website gave details on how people could volunteer at local nature reserves.

     ii.          Conflicting ‘wants’ was a delivery risk that needed to be managed. These could be addressed on a case-by-case basis using a robust consultation process.

 

Strategic Objective 2.3

       i.          The riverside was an important amenity that should be accessible to all, not just boat users.

     ii.          The Council was committed to having a moorings policy in place.

   iii.          The Executive Councillor for Public Places acknowledged that residents had expressed concerns regarding the moorings policy process and their ability to influence it.

   iv.          The consultation process may generate conflicting responses. The Executive Councillor hoped that people could be brought on board and their expectations met / balanced / managed through the process.

 

Strategic Objectives 3.1& 3.2

    v.          It was difficult to quantify capital delivery risks, but preliminary discussions showed that appropriate resources were in place.

 

The Interim Head of Services, Streets and Open Spaces said that interim staff were in place, so this may be a delivery risk.

 

Councillor Kightley said that the City and County Councils needed to work together to deliver the capital programme.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Director of Environment and the Asset Manager said the following:

Strategic Objectives 3.1& 3.2

         i.          A tree consultation workshop occurred in 2013. A range of options were now in development as a result. The public would be consulted on the options in spring/summer 2014. A report on potential policies to address issues would be brought to Environment Scrutiny Committee in October 2014.

       ii.          The Local Centre Proposal (a planning event between officers and architects) would inform work relating to Mitcham’s Corner and the programme of future centres.

 

Strategic Objective 4.1

     iii.          Tourism had to be environmentally and financially sustainable to be considered ‘sustainable’. The City Council was working towards cost neutral tourism services. If this was achieved, Cambridge would be the first council in the country to do so.

 

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 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.