Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register
1. To agree the Statement of Consultation (see Appendix 1) on the Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory and Five-Year Housing Land Supply document including a summary of representations and the Councils’ responses, and consequential and other necessary modifications.
2. To agree the final Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory and Five Year Housing Land Supply – Main Document and Annex (see Appendices 2 and 3) to be published on the Councils’ websites. The Greater Cambridge housing trajectory and five year housing land supply calculations have been prepared jointly with Cambridge City Council, consistent with the adopted Local Plans.
3. To delegate any further minor editing changes to the Statement of Consultation and Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory and Five Year Housing Land Supply – Main Document and Annex to the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development where they are technical matters.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 08/11/2019
Effective from: 08/11/2019
Decision:
Decision of: |
Councillor
Thornburrow, Executive
Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces |
||
Reference: |
19/URGENCY/P&T/10 |
||
Date of
decision: |
1 November 2019 |
Published: 08 November 2019 |
|
Decision Type: |
Non Key |
||
Matter for Decision:
|
1.
To agree the Statement of Consultation (see
Appendix 1) on the Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory and Five-Year Housing
Land Supply document including a summary of representations and the Councils’
responses, and consequential and other necessary modifications. 2. To
agree the final Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory and Five Year Housing
Land Supply – Main Document and Annex (see Appendices 2 and 3) to be
published on the Councils’ websites. The Greater Cambridge housing trajectory
and five year housing land supply calculations have been prepared jointly
with Cambridge City Council, consistent with the adopted Local Plans. 3. To
delegate any further minor editing changes to the Statement of Consultation
and Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory and Five Year Housing Land Supply –
Main Document and Annex to the Joint Director for Planning and Economic
Development where they are technical matters. |
||
Why the decision had to be made (and any
alternative options): |
In January 2019, the Executive Councillor
for Planning Policy and Transport agreed that the Greater Cambridge housing
trajectory and five-year supply calculations would be agreed by the Executive
Member for Planning Policy at Cambridge City Council via a decision outside
of a meeting (together with the Cabinet Member for Planning at South
Cambridgeshire Council). |
||
The
Executive Councillor’s decision(s): |
That the
Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces agreed:
|
||
Reasons for the decision: |
The
Greater Cambridge housing trajectory is used by the Councils to calculate
their five-year housing land supply and to demonstrate that anticipated
housing delivery will meet or exceed the housing requirements set out in
their Local Plans. National planning policy
and guidance requires that a local planning authority should identify and
update annually at least a 5 year supply of specific deliverable housing
sites. A new housing trajectory is required to establish the Greater
Cambridge five-year housing land supply for the purposes of making planning
decisions. In addition, South Cambridgeshire District Council has three
planning appeals where the appellants are challenging the Council’s five year
housing land supply. The first hearing is on 12 November 2019. The
assumptions made by the Councils’ on the deliverability of sites will be
challenged through these appeals and therefore by publishing the updated
Greater Cambridge housing trajectory and five-year supply calculations, the
Councils will be able to use the most up-to-date information for these
appeals. |
||
Scrutiny consideration: |
The Chair and Spokesperson of Planning and Transport Scrutiny
Committee were consulted prior
to the action being authorised. |
||
Report: |
The Greater Cambridge Housing Trajectory and Five-Year Housing Land
Supply – Main Document, Annex and Statement of Consultation Statement can be viewed
at the link below: https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ecCatDisplay.aspx?sch=doc&cat=13458 |
||
Conflicts
of interest: |
None known. |
||
Comments: |
No adverse comments were made. |
Lead officer: Caroline Hunt
Approval of Public Art Commissioning Strategy.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Communities.
Decision published: 31/10/2019
Effective from: 03/10/2019
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
Over the last couple of
years, public art reports to this committee have taken a two-pronged approach, focussed
on the following:
i.
Developing a Public Art Strategy,
which includes proposing a framework and associated principles new public art
commissions; and
ii.
Bringing forward a few public art
commissions prior to the development of the Public Art Strategy, in order to
make effective and timely use of existing time-limited S106 contributions.
While progress continues to
be made on developing the Public Art Strategy, research and advice received
from external public art specialists has underlined the need to work closely
with the shared Planning Service as it reviews related planning policies.
Officers aim to report back on the Strategy in the first half of 2020/21.
In the meantime, this
latest report provided updates, which had been scheduled for this committee
meeting:
i.
The need to commission a public
art project in/ around Trumpington ward’s boundary with Petersfield and
Coleridge.
ii.
The need to take stock of the
River Cam public art programme.
iii.
Other proposals that could be
developed ahead of the development of the Public Art Strategy.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Communities
Agreed to:
i.
Allocate up to £90,000 of S106
public art contributions to develop the ‘Art of Play public art project in
accordance with the outline brief in Appendix A of the Officer’s report.
ii.
De-allocate £330,000 of public art
S106 contributions currently allocated to the River Cam public art programme;
iii.
Instruct officers to develop
proposals for the following projects and report back to this Committee in
2020/21, so that the project proposals and associated s106 funding allocations
can be considered:
a. A
public art project in/around Trumpington ward’s boundary with Petersfield and
Coleridge, using up to £75,000 of time limited, local s106 contributions (if
these cannot be related to the ‘Art of Play’ public art project);
b. A
public art project in Romsey ward using time-limited public art S106
contributions that have to be contractually committed during 2023; and
c. A
city-wide urban art project and associated urban art space at Newmarket Road roundabout
subway, in accordance with the concept proposal in Appendix C 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 received a report from the Streets and Open Spaces
Development Manager.
In response to the report Councillors asked if the council used outside
agencies for public art instead of in-house providers. The Streets and Open
Spaces Development Manager said there were a number of providers who the
council used as consultants.
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.
Lead officer: Nadine Black
Approve proposals to improve the pool and facilities.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Communities.
Decision published: 31/10/2019
Effective from: 03/10/2019
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
A range of
investigatory work was being undertaken at the Jesus Green Lido to consider
current issues, future requirements and options to achieve these. This includes
investigative work and structural assessment of the current buildings and pool
tank along with potential investments required to maintain them for either
their continued use or provide replacement facilities.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Communities
i.
Approved the phased approach
outlined in this report to implement short term and consider longer term
improvements to Jesus Green Lido.
ii.
Approved, subject to business case
approval, the use of all remaining S106 developer contributions collected under
the ‘swimming pool’ contribution type for eligible improvements at Jesus Green
Lido proposed in this report. This includes unallocated swimming pool S106
contributions already received and those received in future.
iii.
Agreed to de-allocate £250,000 of
generic S106 contributions from the Jesus Green Rouse Ball Pavilion project, so
that these funds can, instead, be made available for other projects to mitigate
the impact of development in Cambridge (that is, £125,000 back to community
facilities S106 funds and £125,000 back to outdoor sports S106 funds).
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 Sport & Recreation Manager.
The Sport & Recreation Manager said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
Phase 1 will continue and not be reported back to
committee. Anything concerning phase 2 would come back to committee for
consideration.
ii.
Project phase two: Officers would liaise with
stakeholders to identify possible options and additional investments to improve
the facility, and considered as part of the new leisure contract offer from
October 2023 onwards. Any future proposals would also require approval from
both elected members and planning permissions.
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.
Lead officer: Ian Ross
Agree updated strategies for indoor and outdoor sports, and updated action plan listings for potential investment of S106 developer contributions across the City into facilities.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Communities.
Decision published: 31/10/2019
Effective from: 03/10/2019
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Officer’s
report provided an update on the Playing Pitch and Indoor Sport Strategies
action plans for the City, which were adopted in June
2016.
The strategies
include action plans which have been updated to reflect completed works to
date, and prioritisation of identified project areas, along with the addition
of new opportunities for investment to include Tennis, Bowls, Rowing and
Canoeing, to be included for consideration for funding from existing and future
S106 Developer Contributions or Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding for Outdoor, Indoor and Swimming funds.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Communities
i.
Approved the updated project lists
in appendices 1 and 2 of the Officer’s report to for Indoor and Outdoor Sports
projects for inclusion into the City’s Playing Pitch and Indoor Sport
Strategies for potential investment as strategic project areas for use of
Indoor and Outdoor S106/CIL Developer Contributions.
ii.
Adopted Tennis and Bowls projects
listed in appendices 3 & 4 of the Officer’s report for inclusion into the
indoor sport and playing pitch strategies for potential investment as strategic
project areas for use of Indoor and Outdoor S106/CIL Developer contributions.
iii.
Adopted Rowing and Canoeing
projects listed in appendix 5 of the Officer’s report for inclusion into the
Playing Pitch Strategy for potential investment as strategic project areas for
use of Outdoor S106/CIL Developer contributions.
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, Sport & Recreation Manager.
The Community,
Sport & Recreation Manager said the following in response to Members’
questions
i.
Community use agreements were wide ranging to
encourage the public to participate in sports at the centres, and include a
provision for meetings with the centres management teams to monitor progress,
accessibility and usage of the public sessions at their sites.
ii.
Multi-use game areas in the city can facilitate
volley ball, but most sessions are played indoors. In the summer temporary
courts are setup mainly by the language schools & colleges for informal
games in the open spaces such as Parkers Piece, but there are no permanently
marked grass courts at present.
iii.
The Council worked with different partners to
encourage the public to access different sports facilities, and now negotiate a
range of times too, with Netherhall Sports Centre
facilitating Exercise Referral sessions at the new Gym during school hours.
iv.
S106 agreements all included triggers when
developers should pay over the sporting contributions if the developments go
ahead, and range from levels of occupation of completed units to “upon
commencement” terms.
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.
Lead officer: Ian Ross
To consider progress in delivering the Council's Climate Change Strategy.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment
Decision published: 31/10/2019
Effective from: 03/10/2019
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The Officer’s report provided an update on progress during 2018/19 on
actions to deliver the five objectives of the City Council’s Climate Change
Strategy 2016-21. As part of this, the report includes an update on progress in
implementing the Council’s Carbon Management Plan which details the actions the
Council will take to reduce carbon emissions from its estate and operations.
The report also provided an update on:
i.
The current position of the Climate Change Fund,
which provides support to projects that help to reduce the Council’s own carbon
emissions and/or manage climate change risks to Council staff and property.
ii.
The council’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2018/19.
iii.
A proposed response to Shepreth Wildlife Park’s
Plastics Pledge
Decision of Executive
Councillor for Climate Change,
Environment and
City Centre
i.
Noted the progress achieved during 2018/19 in implementing
the actions in the Climate Change Strategy and Carbon Management Plan.
ii.
Approved the proposed response to Shepreth Wildlife Park’s Plastic
Pledge (as set out at Appendix E 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 received a report from the Strategy and Partnerships
Manager.
The Strategy and Partnerships Manager said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
Ward clean up days were run by the Shared Waste
Service and Housing Service. There were a number of clean up days run across the
city over the year. Undertook to liaise with these services to ascertain if
more clean up days could be offered.
ii.
Will follow up if participating in the 50 Fountains
Challenge is practicable.
iii.
The Council delivered or funded a number of
activities in 2018/19 to encourage and support Council staff, residents and
businesses to reduce single-use plastics such as promoting the 100 plus
drinking water taps in Cambridge which can be found on the Refill app,
including free drinking taps and fountains such as the new one installed by the
Council on Parkers Piece.
iv.
The council has a target to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions from its estate and vehicle fleet by 15% by 2021, with an aspiration
to achieve a 20% reduction by this date. The council had implemented a number
of carbon reduction projects (see Officer’s report for details) as set out in
the Carbon Management Plan. Officers were actively pursuing carbon reduction
across the estate and vehicle fleet.
v.
In March 2016, the Council set an aspiration for
the city of Cambridge to achieve zero carbon status by 2050. The UK
Government’s new national target is in-line with this, as is the most recent
advice from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
and the UK’s Committee on Climate Change. In February 2019, the Council had
called upon the Government to give the Council and other local partners the
powers needed to make Cambridge zero carbon by 2030.
vi.
Undertook to find out more details for Councillors
about advertising and promotion of the new car club scheme jointly with
Cambridgeshire County Council, which allows residents to hire vehicles for
short periods, reducing the need for car-ownership.
vii.
The Council has increased cycle parking provision,
by providing 55 new stands with 110 parking spaces across a number of sites.
This included2 cargo bike parking bays at Queen Anne Terrace car park.
Undertook to find out more details for Councillors regarding scope for more
cargo bike spaces in future.
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.
Lead officer: David Kidston
To adopt the report as the stated policy of the City Council in relation to implementing a Clean Air Zone or Low Emission Zone.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment
Decision published: 31/10/2019
Effective from: 03/10/2019
Decision:
Public Question
Councillor Bick addressed the committee as a Ward Councillor and Greater
Cambridgeshire Partnership representative.
i.
Welcomed the Officer’s report. Hoped this would encourage Greater
Cambridgeshire Partnership to develop a long term strategy to address issues.
ii.
Agreed it is a priority to apply the clean air zone to Class A vehicles
as they were needed to service the city so had to be ‘clean’.
iii.
Other cities had imposed clean air zones.
iv.
Queried if the clean air zone would apply to delivery vehicles in future.
v.
Agreed the clean air zone should not be applied to private motor vehicles
yet. Public realm improvements, road safety and congestion needed to be
reviewed in future. A way to reduce the number of vehicles on the road would be
welcome (instead of changing ‘polluting’ vehicles to ‘clean’ without reducing
the overall number).
The Executive Councillor responded:
i.
The City Council was responsible
for clean air, but Greater Cambridgeshire Partnership had the power to actually
take action on this and mitigating congestion.
ii.
The City Council was working with
Greater Cambridgeshire Partnership to influence them.
Matter for
Decision
The report set out
below aims to acknowledge the work done to date and to reiterate the City
Councils on-going support for a significant transport intervention to cut road
traffic emissions and improve air quality.
In acknowledging
the findings of the Greater Cambridgeshire Partnership funded Clean Air Zone
Feasibility Study, delivered by the City Council in February 2019, the Council
seeks to reinforce the key findings and recommendations.
Officers would
like note the importance of the on-going independent Citizens’ Assembly
organised to help inform any transport interventions to be taken forward by the
Greater Cambridgeshire Partnership.
The combination of
a significant technical evidence base supporting an intervention to curb road
traffic emissions and a robust independent, representative view of potential
interventions from the Citizens’ Assembly should lead to a comprehensive
proposal for a package of measures to be considered by the Greater
Cambridgeshire Partnership board in December 2019.
The City Council
will work with the Greater Cambridgeshire Partnership to support such a package
of measures to include actions to significantly improve air quality in the City
for the medium and long term.
The City council
also notes the recent public commitment by all the UK major bus operators to ‘Only
purchase next generation ultra-low or zero emissions buses from 2025 (but
starting this process by 2023 in some urban areas’.
Decision of
Executive Councillor for Climate Change,
Environment and
City Centre
Agreed to:
i.
Support the contents of the Cambridge Clean Air Zone (CAZ) feasibility study
and its key finding that:
‘Without intervention
and with the expected doubling of the bus fleet, there is a risk that the air
quality in Cambridge will not improve over the next decade.’
ii.
Support the key recommendations of the CAZ
feasibility study, namely,
a. Without intervention and with the expected doubling of the bus fleet,
there is a risk that the air quality in Cambridge will not improve over the
next decade. Air pollution accounts for 106 deaths each year in Cambridge and
South Cambridgeshire.
b. The most effective interventions are those focussed on improving the
whole bus fleet to cleaner vehicles through a charging Clean Air Zone ‘Class A’
(all buses and coaches to be Euro 6, diesel taxis to be Euro 6 and petrol taxis
to be Euro 4). This would deliver compliance with the limit value for Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2) across most of the city in 2021.
c. The most effective intervention to improve air quality and protect public
health in the long term is a charging `Class D’ Clean Air Zone which
includes all vehicles. Improvement in the bus fleet should be a priority due to
their large contribution to emissions. It is recommended that focus is given to
improvement in the vehicle fleet within the city centre area by 2021. It is
expected that the implementation of a Clean Air Zone would take approximately
18 months.
d. By 2031, reductions in
concentrations across the whole of Cambridge will bring further public health
benefits. Introducing a more ambitious charging CAZ (including light goods
vehicles, buses and coaches to be ‘Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) or ‘ Ultra Low
Emission Vehicles (ULEV)) is predicted to reduce NO2 levels to below
80% of the air quality objectives across Cambridge; it is recommended that this
option is pursued.
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 Environmental Quality &
Growth Manager.
In response to the report Councillors commented that parents left their vehicle
engines idling outside schools whilst waiting for children. Queried actions
being taken to address this.
The Environmental Quality & Growth Manager said:
i.
The issue was being reviewed.
ii.
The County Council and schools were trialing a no-idling
zone outside two schools in 2020. The impact would be monitored. Various
schools had volunteered for the trial.
iii.
Street management was the responsibility of the
transport authority (Highways Authority).
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.
Lead officer: Jo Dicks
To adopt the report as the stated policy of the City Council in relation to Electric Vehicles.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment
Decision published: 31/10/2019
Effective from: 03/10/2019
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
Moving to a future
where electric vehicles are the norm, presents many challenges both technical
and social and as a lower tier authority Cambridge City Council only has
control over some aspects of the transition.
Key areas where we
can act and those where we are taking action are identified in the Electric
Vehicle and Infrastructure Strategy document and include Taxi Licencing; Fleet;
Planning; and the management and operation of our car parks and housing
developments.
The document sets
out the approach of Cambridge City Council in identifying those areas where we
can take a lead and where funding opportunities exist. Where opportunities for
grant-funding exist, and the City Council is the appropriate lead, we will
pursue that funding.
Where there is an
obvious need to provide infrastructure on a commercial basis e.g. within our
car parking asset, the aim is to engage the market and find a financially
manageable solution.
Decision of
Executive Councillor for Climate Change,
Environment and
City Centre
i.
Acknowledged both the
opportunities, and limitations of Cambridge City Councils role in supporting
the transition to Electric Vehicles as set out in the appended Electric Vehicle
and Infrastructure Strategy.
ii.
Endorsed the recommended strategic
approach notably:
a. The
key areas for action within Cambridge City Council (Car parks, Taxi licencing,
planning policy, commercial property and Housing.)
b. Identification
of Government, public and commercial sources of funding; and
c. Working
in partnership with other relevant authorities (County Council, Other
Districts, Greater Cambridge Partnership, the Combined Authority to identify
and deliver electric vehicle support in areas where it is appropriate for
others to take the lead.
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 Environmental Quality &
Growth Manager.
The Environmental Quality & Growth Manager said the following in
response to Members’ questions:
i.
The purpose of the strategy was to set out how many
officers/organisations were involved in projects and who could do what.
ii.
The strategy set out performance indicators the
council had signed up to. The aim was to match projects against funding
available. The document was not ‘fixed’, metrics could be developed/amended in
future as the Electric Vehicle and Infrastructure project developed.
iii.
A fleet review was being undertaken. The aim was to
replace a significant number of vehicles with electric ones. A framework was
being put together for a cost/benefit analysis.
The Executive Councillor said vehicles would
be replaced by electric ones where practicable at the end of their working
life.
iv.
The council was trying to facilitate car club
spaces with charging points for electric vehicles with partners. There were a
number of schemes where this was being championed.
v.
The City Council were looking to liaise with other
councils to learn from their experience. The Environmental Quality & Growth
Manager had already liaised with Dundee and Oxford.
vi.
Owner/occupiers could install charging points on
their driveways etc. These were harder to install on-street as the Highways
Authority managed the highway. Drivers could access rapid charge points at
petrol stations.
vii.
Referred to details in the Officer’s report
concerning the electrification of the Stagecoach bus fleet. This was not the
responsibility of the City Council, but the Greater Cambridge Partnership had
some influence. There was a statement of intent in the report that diesel buses
would be replaced with electric ones.
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.
Lead officer: Jo Dicks
To review the findings and consider any recommendations
arising from the independent review.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Communities.
Decision published: 31/10/2019
Effective from: 03/10/2019
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
Following the
decisions taken by this Council, and by Cambridge Live, to end the contract for
services with Cambridge Live, and transfer all its staff and undertakings to
Cambridge City Council, a review was commissioned into the events that led to
this point.
A review has now
been conducted by an industry expert, Mark Taylor, on behalf of the East of
England Local Government Association.
The review
reported on an investigation into events that are seen very differently from
different viewpoints, and finds that both the Council and Cambridge Live could
have acted differently at key points, in ways that might have increased the chances
of the independent trust developing into a successful and viable entity for the
long-term. It highlights the learning from other trusts, in particular that the
first five years at least of a new trust are often difficult, and that
establishing a trust with an intention of achieving savings is unlikely to
create a sustainable basis from which to build a thriving organisation.
The intent of the
report is not to cast blame on any individual or organisation, but to highlight
areas where lessons can be learned, which might be valuable in managing other
arms-length relationships, or in any future decision to create an arms-length
trust.
The review has the
benefit not only of hindsight into what happened, but also of the passing of
time in respect of other organisations, to give a different view on trust
formation from that which was taken at the time of the trust’s formation.
This review did
not examine in depth the financial position of Cambridge Live. Members will be
informed separately when the auditors complete the accounts for the trust, on
the balance sheet at the point of transfer.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Communities
Noted the report,
and to ask officers to consider how the learning might best be applied to
current and future relationships.
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 noted the report referred to “An unnecessary and unhelpful
hostility was allowed to build up between the two organisations”. (Cambridge Live and the City Council.) Queried why did this
happen and could it have been avoided.
The Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Part of the Cambridge Live role was to seek private
sector sponsorship. The City Council will seek sponsorship in future.
ii.
The report said there were some difficult relationships
between Cambridge Live and the City Council. Officers tried to make the
relationship work. Other arms-length organisations reported the same issue.
The Chief
executive said the two organisations were trying to establish their own
identities (when Cambridge Live was set up) so needed to recalibrate their
relationship. She was not aware of any issues at the time but the report said
there was a difficult relationship.
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.
Lead officer: Suzanne Hemingway