Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register
Recommendation for approval of a strategic scheme for the site development of Park Street Car Park and approval of the actions required for progressing a development scheme.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation
Decision published: 21/12/2017
Effective from: 13/11/2017
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
In July 2016 Strategy &
Resource Scrutiny Committee approved the setting up of the Cambridge Investment
Partnership (CIP) as a mechanism for the Council to bring forward assets for
development. The principles which govern the progression of sites with
development opportunities through CIP were approved at Strategy & Resources
Scrutiny Committee on 9th October 2017. Park Street Car Park site was one of
the General Fund assets to be developed using these approved principles.
The CIP Investment Team had
developed a strategic Project Plan for the site incorporating a clear
development brief to meet the Council’s key objectives in line with planning
policy and the Planning Guidance Note for the site. This report outlined the alternative
development options for the site, which included refurbishment and
redevelopment options and explored the delivery of affordable housing on the
site. Alternative options were also considered including the site’s potential
for commercial development.
The financial viability
appraisals for the housing delivery option for affordable housing on this site
demonstrated that this option was not viable without significant financial
contribution from Council reserves. The net loss of the 20 affordable units,
which the Council could have delivered on the site, could be provided elsewhere
in the City. This was set out in section 3.5
If future development
proposals were considered, a commercial development proposal which would
provide basement car parking (Council retained ownership) and an above ground
development (which might generate a capital receipt for the housing investment
programme) might be an option. This would provide the Council with an
investment stake that did not rely on prudential borrowing.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and
Transformation:
i.
Noted the options
proposed and explored by CIP for the redevelopment and refurbishment of Park St
Car Park as set out in section 3.3
ii.
Approved
the recommendation made by CIP not to progress the option to deliver housing on
the Park St Car Park site as part of a redevelopment option as set out in
section 3.3.3
iii.
Noted
that CIP will continue to explore the opportunities for redevelopment on the
site including investigating commercial options; to deliver a scheme that met
the Council’s Strategic Development Brief for the site and the Council’s wider
objectives and, should an agreed scheme be developed, that it be reported to
the Strategy & Resources Committee for scrutiny and the opportunity for public
input, ahead of a decision by the Leader on the CIP plan.
iv.
Approved
a five year rolling programme for the refurbishment of the car park. The
programme would be reviewed and implemented on an annual basis during which
time CIP would explore options for redevelopment of the site to identify an
option that met the Council’s Strategic Development Brief and wider objectives.
A report seeking approval of an option for redevelopment would be presented to
a Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee in 2018 for a decision to proceed
with a preferred option.
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 Strategic Director.
Members of the Committee made the following comments in response to the
report:
i.
Stated that the current situation and indecision
about the future of the car park appeared to be based around profit.
ii.
Referred to a report from 2015 which stated that
development was feasible at a considerable lower cost. Given that recent
investigation had concluded that the work was no longer feasible, the initial
report must have been a waste of money. The advice from both investigations
appeared to be diametrically different. Asked how much the initial studies had
cost.
iii.
Stated that any new transport strategy would take
years to come to fruition so it should not be the basis for the car park
development proposals.
The Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
The recent investigation carried out by Hill
Residential
sought specialist advice and was much more detailed than previous reports.
ii.
Advice from Planners dictated that all of the car
park would now have to be underground which had not been factored into previous
investigations. The additional work required to excavate
and build underground significantly raised the cost.
The Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation said the following
in response to Members’ questions:
i.
Hill Residential had undertaken the most recent
investigation within the parameters requested and confirmed that the development was
not feasible.
ii.
Affirmed the Council’s commitment to exploring
development options for Park Street Car Park but not into social housing. The
five-year plan allowed the opportunity to see how transport reforms across the
city unfolded which would highlight the future requirement for car parking in
the city centre.
Councillor Bick formally
proposed the following amendment to the Officer’s recommendation:
Deleted wording struck through and additional wording underlined:
i.
Noted the options proposed
and explored by CIP for the redevelopment and refurbishment of Park St Car Park
as set out in section 3.3
ii.
Approved the recommendation
made by CIP not to progress the option to deliver housing on the Park St Car
Park site as part of a redevelopment option as set out in section 3.3.3
iii.
Noted that CIP will
continue to explore the opportunities for redevelopment on the site including
investigating commercial options; to deliver a scheme that met the Council’s
Strategic Development Brief for the site and the Council’s wider objectives
and, should an agreed scheme be developed, that it be reported to the Strategy
& Resources Committee for scrutiny and the opportunity for public input,
ahead of a decision by the Leader on the CIP plan.
ii.
Request further options to
be prepared for a mixed redevelopment of the site for housing and underground
parking, revisiting the original parameters in the development brief - in
particular envisaging fewer car parking spaces; evaluating investment in the
car parking provision against the return in car parking income rather than in
relation to a subsidy from the housing; and considering alternative development
vehicles as options alongside the CIP.
iii.
Approved a five year
rolling programme for the refurbishment of the car park. The programme would be
reviewed and implemented on an annual basis during which time CIP the
Council would explore options for redevelopment of the
site to identify an option that met the Council’s Strategic Development Brief, revised
as necessary, and wider objectives. A report seeking approval of an
option for redevelopment would be presented to a Strategy and Resources
Scrutiny Committee in 2018 for a decision to proceed with a preferred option.
In moving their amendment Councillors Bick
and Cantrill commented:
i.
The amendment was based upon the feasibility
statement. The redevelopment brief and parameters of the specification should
be revised to take a more flexible approach.
ii.
The business element of the car park should be
considered on its own, the housing aspect should not subsidise it.
iii.
Suggested that options for development should be
open to other avenues rather than just the CIP. The revision of wording puts
the power back with the Council.
iv.
Agreed that until a final development decision had
been made the car park was in need of refurbishment to be fit for use.
v.
Raised concern about CIP, as a commercial developer
because its interests were different to that of a Local Authority. If there was
little to gain economically from the Park Street development they would not
view it as viable, the social benefits to the area would not be considered.
vi.
Stated that the estimation of each unit costing
£1million assumed no financial return from the car park as a business.
In response to the amendment Councillors
said the following:
i.
Opposition councillors should have distributed the
proposed amendment earlier to allow for more thorough consideration.
ii.
Stated that the new wording constrained
flexibility.
iii.
Suggested that the comments from opposition
councillors had been unreasonably critical toward the Hill Residential for
undertaking the detailed costing’s especially when they had incurred the cost
rather than passing it on to the Council. When looking at the bigger picture,
lots of factors needed to be considered, Hill Residential had the expertise to
undertake that assessment.
iv.
Confirmed that the CIP was accountable to Council.
v.
CIP’s commercial awareness and expertise had been
beneficial when assessing the Park Street site because they were able to
highlight previously unseen weaknesses. Financial viability was crucial in
order for successful delivery.
vi.
The Council had a limited time to spend the
devolved £70million on council housing so it needed to be invested in site
which could achieve results quickly otherwise the money would be lost.
The Committee rejected the amendment to the recommendation by 4 votes to
2.
The Committee resolved by 4 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.
Lead officer: Fiona Bryant
Recommendation for approval of strategic scheme for site development ahead of transfer of land to Cambridge Investment Partnership and the associated submission of a planning application.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation
Decision published: 21/12/2017
Effective from: 13/11/2017
Decision:
Public Question
Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below.
Additional public questions recorded REF(17/50/SR)
1. Martin Lucas-Smith raised the following points:
i.
Raised concern
regarding the high level of car parking on site. The area was well connected by
local transport.
ii.
Recognised that some residents
would need the use of a car but the allocation was too high. A survey
undertaken on 11 streets in the local area estimated that only 0.5 cars per
dwelling were needed.
iii.
Stated that parking
added an estimated £15k to the cost of housing.
iv.
Requested that the
recommendation was amended to include
·
Publishing a survey
that highlighted the level of parking actually used in the area.
·
Provide the same
level of parking that was currently provided in the surrounding area.
The Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation responded:
i.
Confirmed that the number of parking spaces had already been
reduced. He was happy for the results of the parking assessment to be shared.
Martin Lucas-Smith raised
the following points as a supplementary question:
i.
Agreed the need to provide disabled, visitor
and car club spaces.
ii.
Queried why he had not received a response
regarding the price of providing parking or on his proposed amendments.
The Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation responded:
i.
Stated
that the evidence base would form part of the planning application.
ii.
Disagreed
that residents should be denied the right to park.
iii.
Confirmed
that the comments were welcomed and would be considered.
2. John Preston raised the following points:
i.
Asked whether the
full planning application would consider the whole depot site inclusive of
access, the YMCA and former library building.
ii.
Special regard
needed to be taken to the library because of its listed status. Queried whether
Historic England had been contacted regarding the library.
iii.
Asked why the
library had been neglected from the proposals so far.
iv.
Stated that it would
be prudent to postpone the planning application until a transport assessment
had been carried out, access issued had been looked at and YMCA proposals had
been fully considered.
The Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation responded:
i.
Agreed that the interaction with the library needed
to be considered and Historic England would be contacted.
ii.
A transport assessment would be undertaken to look
at the junctions and how to minimise impact.
iii.
The planning application for the majority of the site
was due to be submitted in December. The YMCA would have a separate planning
application.
iv.
Confirmed that he was happy to respond to other
questions in writing.
John Preston raised the
following points as a supplementary question:
i.
Stated that at
every stage of the consultation process so far he had felt the need to request
further information about access arrangements to the site rather than it being
readily available.
The Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation responded:
i.
Highlighted that the site had been used by vehicles
for the last 100 years.
ii.
Other permeable factors needed to be considered
such as the impact of the Chisholm Trail, which ran through parts of the site.
3. John Franks, Chair of Petersfield
Area Community Trust (PACT) raised the following points:
i.
PACT sought a
charitable objective and raised concern about how the proposals were going to
be incorporated with the wider existing community.
ii.
Queried accesses to
the site, the proposals were unclear and needed to be integrated with the
surrounding area more effectively.
iii.
The provision of
green space appeared fragmented which limited the usable open space.
iv.
PACT had received
information that the community space would be developed in conjunction with
YMCA, however, early indicators suggested that community use would be limited.
v.
Requested that
community facility funding should not go to the YMCA owned buildings, it needed
to provide dedicated community provision.
The Strategic Director responded:
i.
Confirmed
that the Chisholm Trail provided north to south access of the site.
ii.
Referred
to section 3.2.4 of the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which outlined
how the green space was designed to accommodate four different activities.
There was also an S106 requirement to accommodate for the needs of the wider
community.
iii.
Welcomed
the contribution made by PACT and encouraged a broader discussion on provision
and how this could be provided.
4. Jannie Brightman raised the following points:
i.
Requested more clarity
within the development. There appeared to be lots of overlapping area which
impact one another between the SPD, consultations, committee meetings and
planning applications. Many new stages were starting before others had been
completed which meant that the situation had become confusing.
ii.
Referenced the
YMCA and asked how land could be transferred to CIP if they did not know what
would be on it yet without receiving a detailed plan first.
iii.
Queried what
commitment had been made to the YMCA.
The Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation responded:
i.
The YMCA had provided lots of information and had
committed to providing community space.
ii.
No firm proposals had been received for the Gate
House.
iii.
The YMCA would not be included in the first planning
application because the proposals had only recently been submitted. The Council
did not want to rush the detail; it needed careful consideration to be
beneficial in delivering on wider objectives for both parties.
Jannie Brightman raised the
following points as a supplementary question:
i.
Stated that the decision to include the YMCA
appeared to be a done deal. Many other suggestions had been submitted
throughout this project but none had been considered as thoroughly as this one.
ii.
Petersfield has been crying out for more community
facilities, asked if they could hope to receive some which were run by the
Council.
The Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation stated that it
had not yet been agreed who would run and own the facilities provided.
The Strategic Director responded:
i.
Confirmed that the agreement in place saw CIP
proposals go before the Board before they came to committee. The YMCA proposals
would include a lot more detail.
ii.
They intended to preserve the old library so
discussion with the County Council was needed.
iii.
Clarified that the project plan wasn’t conditional
to the consultation on 2 November but was based upon the indicative project
plan.
iv.
The consultation was open until 20 November; so far
70 responses had been received.
5. Stephen Hewitt raised the following points:
i.
Asked what price the Council would achieve when it
transferred the Mill Road Depot land into the CIP.
ii.
Queried if the amount received was best value.
iii.
Sought clarification whether the transferred land
would be freehold or leasehold.
The Strategic Director responded:
i.
Confirmed that an
independent valuation had been undertaken to establish the current value of the
land. The amount was estimated at £11million.
ii.
The land would be
leasehold. If issues arose there was a break clause in the lease.
Matter for
Decision
The principles
which govern the progression of sites with development opportunities through
CIP were approved at Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee on 9th October
2017. Mill Road Depot was the first General Fund asset to be developed using
these approved principles.
The CIP Investment Team had
developed a strategic Project Plan for the site incorporating a clear
development brief to meet the Council’s key objectives following public
consultation and in line with planning policy and the supplementary planning
document for the site agreed in March 2017. CIP Board approved this Project Plan
on 3rd November 2017.
In accordance with the
principles set out and the CIP Board approval of the Project Plan, this report
outlined the key elements of the Plan, including a summary investment plan, and
identified alternative options considered to inform the agreed strategic
objectives. The paper made recommendations for transfer of the site to CIP for
the Investment Partnership to take the site forward for development as part of
an overall programme to deliver the 500 new Council
homes.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and
Transformation
i.
Approved the
transfer of the land known as Mill Road Depot, shown edged red on the attached
plan in Appendix 1, to Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) for redevelopment
in accordance with the approved Supplementary Planning Document. This transfer
would be at a value provided by an independent valuer,
which had been approved by CIP Board as detailed in the Project Plan.
ii.
Noted
that, following transfer of the land, there would be two planning applications
submitted by CIP to develop the land for housing and the YMCA in accordance with
the Council’s strategic and corporate objectives and with the output from the
public consultation and pre application planning process.
iii.
Noted
also that the proposed commercial in confidence investment plan for the project
in Appendix 5 would be confirmed subject to the outcomes of the public
consultation on 2 November and the
determination of the CIP’s planning applications. The relevant investment
requirements would be subject to the appropriate Council investment decisions.
iv.
Approved
further work on the provision and management of community facilities in
discussion with the local community, local councillors and the YMCA.
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 Strategic Director.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Referred to the first recommendation and asked what
written agreement was in place between Cambridge City Council, CIP and YMCA.
ii.
Queried whether the Council should wait until a
proper agreement with the YMCA was in place before transferring the land given
that it was a key part of the package.
iii.
Asked how the financial relationship with the YMCA
been agreed.
iv.
Asked who was undertaking the negotiation within
the tripartite relationship.
The Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
The Council had received a commitment from YMCA. A
draft Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) had committed the YMCA and CIP to work
together for the relocation. Once an agreement had been concluded a contract
would follow.
ii.
The relocation of the YMCA was a recent proposal.
If the whole development waited until an agreement was reached with the YMCA it
would delay the whole project significantly. In order to make progress the
first application would cover the wider site and the YMCA would follow.
iii.
Confirmed that the financial relationship was based
on best estimates at this stage.
iv.
Highlighted that it was inappropriate to transfer
the land in two separate transactions to accommodate the YMCA agreement. The
MoU ensured the best outcome from all parties and a break clause gave
assurances.
v.
Affirmed that the negotiation was undertaken on a
tripartite basis between the City Council, YMCA and Hill Residential, the City
Council’s planning department were offering advice.
Councillor Baigent referred to the concern
raised by the public speakers regarding community facilities and suggested an
amendment to the recommendations.
Councillor Baigent proposed an additional recommendation as an amendment to the
Officer’s recommendation:
·
Approved
further work on the provision and management of community facilities in discussion
with the local community, local councillors and the YMCA.
The Committee unanimously approved the additional recommendation.
Councillor Cantrill proposed the following amendment to the Officer’s
recommendation:
Deleted
wording struck through, additional wording underlined:
ii.
Noted that, following transfer of the land, there would be two planning
applications submitted by CIP to develop the land for housing and the YMCA in
accordance with the Council’s strategic and corporate objectives and with the
output from the public consultation and pre application planning process.
ii.
The transfer of the land would be subject to the following conditions:
a) That the level of
social housing on the site would be no less than 59% of the total number of
homes (currently 187)
b) That the
Council would receive a rate of interest (on a combination of current and
rolled up basis) on the value of the instrument issued in relation to the
transfer of the land into the CIP
c) That the
provision of community facilities would be managed on a joint basis between the
Council (and/or an appropriate residents forum from the development) and the
YMCA (in a joint venture vehicle)
d) That the
social housing, when acquired by the HRA, following the development of the
site, would be rented on a Local Authority Rent basis
e) That the
Council commits to acquire a further 20% (37 units of the market homes) through
the Cambridge Housing Company, that it would rent on a Local Living Rent basis
(ie one third of income of the household)
To the extent that one or a number of the
conditions a) to c) were not satisfied then the Council would have the option
to trigger the right for the land to revert back to the Council
Councillor Cantrill requested that part C of the amendment be voted on separately.
The Committee rejected part C of the
additional recommendation by 4 votes to 2.
The Committee rejected the remainder of the
amendment by 4 votes to 2.
Opposition Councillors made the following
comments in response to the amendments:
i.
Stated that although parts of both amendments were
similar in terms of the focus on community facilities the Liberal Democrat
amendment was broader overall.
ii.
They wanted guarantees that the joint venture with
the CIP would ensure the interests of both parties. A mechanism needed to be in
place which enabled the Council to retrieve the land if the promised features
were not delivered.
iii.
Asserted that Councillor Baigent’s
amendment was too vague. Joint venture management regarding the community
facilities required clearly defined aims and objectives to negotiate
effectively.
iv.
Stated the belief that the Council should receive a
return on the land.
The Strategic Director said the following in
response to Members’ questions:
i.
The initial brief for the site was for a minimum of
40% social rented housing, this has been exceeded already. If the number was
increased to 59% the project funding gap would put significant pressure on the
Council.
ii.
To change the levels of social rented housing on
the site could have significant implications for the CIP agreement.
The Committee agreed that in order to
discuss the detail and financial implications of Councillor Cantrill’s
amendment the meeting would have to exclude the press and public.
The Scrutiny Committee resolved to exclude members of the public from the meeting on the
grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of
information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part
1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.
Members
of the public were excluded at 21:15
Members
of the public were readmitted at 21:50
Councillor Bick referred to the future purchase of housing on the site
and suggested an amendment to the recommendations.
Councillor Bick proposed the following amendment to
the Officer’s recommendation:
v.
Agreed to investigate a potential future
purchase of market homes on this site for letting at Local Living Rent
The Committee rejected the amendment by 4
votes to 2.
The Committee resolved by 4
votes to 2 to endorse the officer recommendations.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations as amended.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor
(and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Fiona Bryant
To approve the Council's Anti-Poverty Strategy for 2017-2020.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Communities.
Decision published: 17/11/2017
Effective from: 05/10/2017
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Council’s
first Anti-Poverty Strategy was approved by the Executive Councillor for
Finance and Resources at Strategy and Resources Committee on 23 March 2015. The
strategy set out the Council’s strategic approach to addressing poverty in
Cambridge during the period April 2014 to March 2017.
The Council’s
Anti-Poverty Strategy aimed to improve the standard of living and daily lives
of those residents in Cambridge who currently experienced poverty; and to help
alleviate issues that could lead households on low incomes to experience
financial pressures.
The Council has
produced a revised and updated Anti-Poverty Strategy for the period from April
2017 to March 2020, which was presented at committee for approval by the
Executive Councillor. The revised Anti-Poverty Strategy set out 5 key
objectives and 57 associated actions to reduce poverty in Cambridge over the
next three years.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Communities
Approved
the revised Anti-Poverty Strategy for 2017-2020.
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 Strategy and Partnerships
Manager.
Opposition Councillors made the following comments in response to the
report:
i.
Sought clarification on whether projects that
received funding from the Sharing Prosperity Fund delivered value for money.
Requested quantifiable details such as return on investment data.
ii.
Requested that future officer reports included
additional information on the impact of projects funded through the Sharing
Prosperity Fund so Members could properly scrutinise them and assess whether
they are effective and were delivering value for money.
iii.
Sought clarification regarding the respective
contributions to some anti-poverty projects made by the Council and partners,
such as the Living Wage campaign and the collective energy-switching scheme.
The Strategic Director undertook to put measurable details of impacts in
future officer reports where available, so that councillors could scrutinise
projects.
iv.
The Anti-Poverty Strategy approach was working well
where it had been introduced by Labour Councils across the country.
v.
Requested the Anti-Poverty Strategy looked at the
impact of general long term risks (eg Brexit, low
income families not being able to afford food due to rising cost of living).
Particularly for disabled people in poverty as they were hit harder than able
bodied people and had less access to resources (eg
education and leisure facilities).
vi.
Suggested that community centres could provide more
free ICT facilities.
The Strategy and Partnerships Manager said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
The table in Appendix A
(P31 Sharing Prosperity Fund expenditure to date and future allocations to
projects) showed time limited (1-3 years) funding for projects. Some projects
had funding until 2017-18 whereas others also received it for 2018-19. Funding
would be reviewed in future.
ii.
The Officer’s report set out a cost/benefit
analysis for funding allocations, where available. Overall projects delivered
value for money, but some led to more direct cost savings than others. For
example the fuel and water poverty project led to direct cost savings for
residents by providing support for measures such as switching energy providers,
energy efficiency improvements to properties, energy debt write-offs, and installing
water metres. However, the project was resource intensive as
many people who were in fuel poverty were vulnerable and required a high
level of face-to-face support from officers in order to make these changes.
iii.
Both the original and revised Anti-Poverty Strategy
emphasise that the City Council could not undertake work on its own and would
have to deliver initiatives alongside partners. This was one of the learning
points from the original strategy.
iv.
(Reference P31 of the agenda) The City Council was
working in partnership to deliver a number of anti-poverty projects which had
received funding from the Sharing Prosperity Fund. The Council has worked in
partnership with the national Living Wage Foundation (LWF) to promote the
Living Wage, with the LWF focussing on national employers based in Cambridge,
and the City Council focussing on independent employers in the city. The
Council has carried out additional promotion of the county-wide collective
energy-switching scheme organised by Cambridgeshire County Council. Data was
available on the number of Cambridge residents that have switched providers
through the scheme, but it was not possible to identify how many of these have
done so as a direct result of the Council’s promotional activity.
v.
The Council works in partnership with a number of
churches and other partners to provide free holiday lunches to low income
families in venues across the city. This project will continue in future, but
the Council is not required to continue funding it through the SPF as the
project is sustained by contributions from mainstream Council budgets and
voluntary and private sector partners.
vi.
Additional resources have been allocated the
Sharing Prosperity Fund through the Mid Term Financial Strategy. Prior to this
allocation being made, the Strategy and Partnerships Manager had worked with
officers across the council to identify initial project ideas which would
achieve the Strategy’s objectives. These projects would be worked up into more
detailed proposals in due course and progress will be reported back to the
Community Services Scrutiny Committee in future.
vii.
The City Council had various projects that
addressed multiple priorities eg the Sharing
Prosperity Fund has funded Cambridge Sustainable food to deliver cookery
lessons for low income residents, which addresses poverty, healthy eating and
sustainable food issues. The Digital Skills Strategy focussed on increasing
people’s access to the internet, but also helping them to upskill so they could
apply for better jobs. Once they were on-line, people were more able to change
tariffs and get better deals.
viii.
The City Council was working with private sector
providers to increase access to, and reduce costs from, broadband services. For
example, people could access free wi-fi in community
centres and some other council buildings. The Strategy and Partnerships Manager
was unable to go into detail of other projects due to commercial sensitivity.
ix.
It was sometimes hard to quantify which
benefits to residents were due to the input of the City Council when working in
partnership with other organisations, but that we valued working
together and believed that those partnerships were the best way to use council
resources alongside others to help communities. Other partners and services were also facing
diminishing resources from Central Government.
The Executive Councillor said:
a.
Digital skills were important as people had to
access more (services) on-line, for example Universal Credit.
b.
Undertook to follow up concerns about Clay Farm ICT
facilities with the Centre Manager.
c.
The revised Anti-Poverty Strategy contained a
stronger reference to the dual impact of poverty on disabled people and people
with other protected characteristics.
d.
£1.3m of dedicated Sharing Prosperity Fund funding
had been spent to date through the Strategy.
e.
The City Council would do what it could to mitigate
the impact of County Council Children Centre closures on City Council services
(ie greater strain due to increased demand).
The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 to endorse the
recommendation.
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.
Lead officer: David Kidston
To approve the proposed phase 1 implementation plan of the Streets and Open Spaces Development Strategy 2017-21.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services
Decision published: 17/11/2017
Effective from: 05/10/2017
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
As the Council’s
largest frontline service, Streets and Open Spaces (S&OS) has undertaken a
review to consider how best to deliver the service in future, taking into
account the increasing demand placed on the service by growth, as well as the
need to continuously deliver value for money for the Council.
At the 29 June
2017 Community Service Scrutiny Committee, the Executive Councillor for Streets
and Open Spaces accepted the findings of the service review and approved a four
year service development strategy (2017-21).
The Officer’s report set out the first phase programme of proposed
service changes to deliver the approved strategy and achieve the target
outcomes. Subsequent programme phases, detailing further proposed changes,
would be developed and reported to future Committees as required.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces
i.
Approved the proposed review of the
following operational service areas, with the aim of aligning resources to
service needs:
a. Operational
management and supervision structure and capacity.
b. Operational
overlap in City Ranger and Grounds Maintenance and Street Cleansing service
activities.
c. Community
engagement and education service structure and capacity.
ii.
Supported, as a stakeholder, the
proposed joint streets and open spaces and waste ICT management systems project
involving Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire District
Councils.
iii.
Approved the proposed rescheduling
of cleaning to the following public toilets:
a. Arbury
Court.
b. Barnwell
Road.
c. Chesterton
Recreation Ground.
d. Chesterton
Road.
e. Coleridge
Recreation Ground.
f. Jesus
Green.
g. Lammas
Land.
h. Mill
Road.
i. Nightingale
Recreation Ground.
j. Romsey
Recreation Ground.
k. Kings
Hedges.
l. Victoria
Avenue.
iv.
Requested a report to Committee on
the events service review and associated recommendations, including changes to
fees and charges and protection of the green spaces, in January, 2018.
v.
Approved the introduction of car
park charges at Lammas Land car park, to deter long stay commuter and shopper
use; and delegation of authority for approving final charging system to the
Strategic Director, in consultation with Executive Councillor for S&OS.
vi.
Approved the roll out of pictorial
meadows and other such attractive and environmentally friendly planting schemes
in place of ornamental bedding on city-managed sites.
vii.
Delegated authority to the
Strategic Director, in consultation with Executive Councillor for S&OS, to
approve any resulting changes to the staffing structure arising from any
approved phase 1 programme proposals.
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 Environmental Services.
He tabled an addendum to the report to clarify Kings Hedges and Victoria Avenue
public toilets would be included in the rescheduled cleaning arrangements. This
was set out in the main body of the report, but omitted from the covering
report recommendations.
iii.
Approve the proposed rescheduling
of cleaning to the following public toilets:
a. Arbury
Court.
b. Barnwell
Road.
c. Chesterton
Recreation Ground.
d. Chesterton
Road.
e. Coleridge
Recreation Ground.
f. Jesus
Green.
g. Lammas
Land.
h. Mill
Road.
i. Nightingale
Recreation Ground.
j. Romsey
Recreation Ground.
k.
Kings
Hedges.
l.
Victoria
Avenue.
The Executive Councillor said the strategy was about how actions would be
undertaken, not what would be undertaken. The review would be staff led if it
were approved by committee today.
Opposition Councillors made the following comments in response to the
report:
i.
Expressed concern about perceived cuts to services
such as toilet cleaning on Jesus Green.
ii.
Sought reassurance that the service review would
not lead to staff reductions.
iii.
Suggested that members of the public did not have
time to undertake volunteer maintenance work.
iv.
Sought clarification about who paid for repairs to
the public realm after events. If it was the event holders, sought reassurance
maintenance would be done immediately after events as sometimes this did not
occur eg after the Beer Festival.
The Head of Environmental Services said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
Frequency of cleaning times were proposed to be
reduced for toilets identified as low usage facilities. The Head of
Environmental Services was confident that services could be reduced and
cleaning standards maintained. The situation would be monitored and cleaning
times amended if required. Usage could be monitored through coin box deposits
of pay-for-use facilities and data extrapolated for nearby ‘free’ toilets.
ii.
The service review had 3 themes:
1.
Improving operational efficiency while maintaining
high standards.
2.
Making Cambridge ‘greener’.
3.
Increasing income generation.
iii.
The strategy aimed to address service overlap.
There was no clear idea how to do so at present, which was the point of the
review. There was no plan to delete services that people valued, the intention
was to keep these and give them the resources they needed but remove the
overlap in services.
iv.
There was no fixed plan on how to resolve issues or
the impact of proposals on staff. There were some vacancies in the service at
present. If some staff implications arose from the review it was hoped some
staff could be transferred to the vacant posts or new ones created in future.
v.
The future of the Jesus Green toilet was uncertain,
so there was no plan to invest in it at present but necessary maintenance work
would be undertaken.
The Strategic Director said that a decision on
the pool and pavilion were due in Spring 2018, which would enable officers to
take a decision on the best way forward in relation to the Jesus Green toilets. In the meantime
issues such as anti-social behaviour would be monitored and any necessary
refurbishment undertaken.
vi.
Volunteer/community work on the public realm was
popular at present and this side of the service was growing. Officers would
cover what volunteers could not.
vii.
Making Cambridge Greener was a corporate priority
to make the public realm more environmentally friendly such as re-routing
vehicles to reduce mileage. The Service was committed to this through actions
such as changing diesel vehicles to electric.
viii.
Event organisers had to pay for maintenance work to
repair the public realm after events. This was part of their licence. The Head
of Environmental Services undertook to follow up concerns about damage caused
to the public realm as a result of the Beer Festival.
In responses to
questions the Strategic Director said work was currently underway to procure a
new single integrated ICT management system, including mobile working
technologies, for the streets and open spaces and waste services of Cambridge
City and South Cambs and Hunts District Councils. This would be an integrated
customer service system that councillors and officers could follow progress
against ‘tickets’ (reported issues) once they were raised by members of the
public etc. The Strategic Director undertook to brief Councillors on the
current position after the meeting.
The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 2 to endorse the recommendations
(as amended).
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations as amended.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor
(and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Joel Carré
Decision Maker: Community Services Scrutiny Committee
Made at meeting: 05/10/2017 - Community Services Scrutiny Committee
Decision published: 16/11/2017
Effective from: 05/10/2017
Decision:
The minutes of the meeting held on 29 June 2017 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chair.