Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision

This report provides an update on the work of the review to date and outlined proposals for the next phase.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

       i.          Noted the findings from the ‘call for evidence’ part of the community facilities audit undertaken between January and June 2016, as detailed in this report.

     ii.          Agreed to the development of a Community Centres Strategy as set out in section 5 of the report. This will support the review’s objective to build stronger communities and provide a clear rationale for the Council’s support for community facilities under 3 categories:

a)   Core Centres - Council supported and assessed to be strategically important centres.

b)   Transitional Centres - not assessed as strategically important to the Council and require further options appraisal work.

c)    Independent Centres - not assessed as strategically important to the Council and already receive minimal or no Council support or core funding.

   iii.          Agreed to work being undertaken between June and September 2016 to continue to invite and assess Expressions of Interest. This would include following up those already received including the County Council’s review of community hubs, associated City Council strategies and specific areas of interest expressed by voluntary sector organisations.

   iv.          Agreed to promote all community facilities across the city in two phases:

a)   Publishing a list of facilities which is searchable at ward level.

b)   Looking into how this list could be further developed and made available in an accessible and sustainable way.

 

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 & Development Manager.

 

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

       i.          Accessibility for disabled people was considered as part of the community facility review, but this was not referenced in the report due to a typographical error. It would be referenced in future, as would a reference to gender identity and belief in the facilities access statement, to ensure that up to date equality work was promoted.

     ii.          Referred to report paragraph 5.8 regarding the programme of work to develop the Community Centres Strategy. Work was on-going to collect data to help the Council identify actions to take in future.

   iii.          There was on-going evidence base work to identify gaps in community facilities. Community facilities work tied into the Anti-Poverty Strategy. City and County Officers hoped to join up strategies in future so they would dovetail rather than work in isolation.

   iv.          Community facility work may identify facilities that residents were unaware of to address the perception that demand exceeded supply.

    v.          Referred to the timetable of assessment work and committee reports set out on P110 of the agenda.

   vi.          A list of community facilities was published on city council webpages.

 

The Urban Growth Project Manager said that further details were listed via the City Council’s Developer Contributions webpage (www.cambridge.gov.uk/s106), setting out which community facilities had received S106 funding with community use agreements. The list included contact details for bookings.

 

The Committee resolved by 6 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.