section 106 payments, expenditure and ... - cambridge.gov.uk · for south cambridgeshire dc -...

Cambridge City Council Response to FOI 5520 (dated 30 July 2019)

FOI ref. no 5520

Section 106 payments, expenditure and balances as at 31 March 2019 Date of response: 30 July 2019 Thank you for your request for information, dated 9 July 2019, in which you asked for the following information regarding Section 106 developer contributions: 1. Section 106 payments, expenditure and balances at March 2019;

2. 2018/19 Section 106 expenditure by category; and

3. A copy of the council report for 2018/19 s106 allocated expenditure by category. You asked us to provide the response to requests 1 and 2 in your spreadsheet. We acknowledged your request on 11 July 2019 and wrote to you again on 23 July 2019 to ask for clarification from you about the information you are seeking. Given the way that your table is formatted, it is our understanding that your request 1 relates only to S106 contributions set out in S106 agreements agreed in 2017/18 and 2018/19. As we have not heard back from you since our email, dated 23 July, we have based our response on this understanding of your request. OUR RESPONSE As well as providing the replies to your requests 1 and 2 in your spreadsheet (attached), we have also included the information in this covering reply, not least to explain how we have interpreted your requests for information. Five reports/briefing papers about S106 funding are also attached to this response in as part of the reply to your request 3. Our answers can be found on the following pages. Commentary for request 1: Alongside the table on page 2, please note that:

a. The amounts agreed in 2017-18 and 2018-19 but not received by 31/3/2019 reflects the fact that triggers for contribution payments are often based on commencement of construction, which can normally take place up to three years after planning approval.

b. S106 agreements agreed in 2017-18 and 2018-19 have included planning obligations for on-site affordable housing, rather than off-site contributions for housing projects. This puts into context our reply in Column K that there was no S106 spend on housing projects by 31/3/2019 of off-site housing contributions agreed in 2017-18 and 2018-19.

c. Not all ‘agreed but not yet received’ contributions (set out in Column M) may come to fruition (for example, if the development is not actually built out or if triggers or other conditions for payment of contributions are not reached).


Request 1: Section 106 payments, expenditure and balances at March 2019 Your table seeks a number of details in particular columns on your spreadsheet.

Column Your column heading Our understanding of the information requested Our response

B 2017/18 received Value of S106 contributions set out in S106 agreements agreed in 2017/18 that were received by 31/3/2019

£57,912.50

C 2017/18 agreed, not received Value of S106 contributions set out in S106 agreements agreed in 2017/18 but not received by 31/3/2019

£892.613.00

D 2017/18 expenditure Value of S106 contributions set out in S106 agreements agreed in 2017/18 that were spent by 31/3/2019

£0.00

E 2018/19 received Value of S106 contributions set out in S106 agreements agreed in 2018/19 that were received by 31/3/2019

£68,380.50

F 2018/19 agreed, not received Value of S106 contributions set out in S106 agreements agreed in 2018/19 but not received by 31/3/2019

£631,117.50

G 2018/19 expenditure Value of S106 contributions set out in S106 agreements agreed in 2018/19 that were spent by 31/3/2019

£12,324.00

H Total received Sum of columns B and E £126,293.00

I Total agreed, not received Sum of columns C and F £1,523,730.50

J Total expenditure Sum of columns D and G £12,324.00

K Total expenditure - allocated to housing projects

Subset of Column J, representing spend of off-site S106 housing contributions agreed in 2017-18 and 2018-19

£0.00 (See note [b] on page 1)

L Amount received (£) for future projects, balance at March 2019

Column H minus Column J £113,969.00

M Amount remaining (£) (agreed, not yet received), balance at March 2019

Seems to be the same as Column I (See note [c] on page 1)

£1,523,730.50


Request 2: 2018/19 Section 106 expenditure by category The following table is based on expenditure on S106 projects (rounded down to the nearest £100) which was incurred in the 2018/19 financial year. These figures are not comparable with the reply to request 1. This is because most of the spending on S106 projects in 2018/19 was funded by developer contributions set out in S106 agreements that were agreed prior to 2017/18.

Category 2018/19 spend

Community facilities £458,100

Informal open spaces £319,100

Play provision for children and teenagers £286,200

Outdoor sports £265,500

Indoor sports £320,400

Public art £178,200

Public realm improvements £106,400

Waste and recycling bins for new homes £53,200

Of approximately £1.98 million costs incurred on S106-funded projects in 2018/19, only around £12,300 (play provision) is being funded by received contributions set out in S106 agreements agreed in 2017/18 and 2018/19. Most S106 contributions agreed over the last few years from major developments in Cambridge tend to stipulate that this money can be used within 10 years of receipt. Please note the following ‘caveats’ on the information provided.

i. It reflects our current understanding of how this 2018/19 project spend relates to the various contribution categories: where a project involves more than one contribution type (e.g. improvements to a recreation ground can involve both play provision and informal open space S106 funds), these estimates may be subject to change.

ii. Although your table for request 2 refers to 2018/19 ‘drawdown’, please note that the figures that we have provided above relate to the spend in this financial year that project managers have assigned to these project budgets. Draw-downs of S106 funds towards projects are normally made after project completion, once standard checks have been made as to whether all costs incurred are in line with funding approvals and the intended use of the developer contributions: this is an on-going process.

Request 3: Council reports for 2018/19 s106 allocated expenditure by category The Council produced a number of reports in 2018/19 about S106 allocated expenditure, including allocations made in that year. These reports are attached to this response.

a. A report on the ‘S106 Community Facilities funding round 2018’ was considered by the Council’s Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee on 28 June 2018. The recommendations - to allocate S106 funding (agreed before April 2015) to projects relating to community facilities and outdoor and indoor sports provision – were approved by the Executive Councillor for Communities.


b. ‘Public Art small-scale grants 2018’ were also reported to the same scrutiny committee meeting and the recommendations to grant-fund a range of public art projects were agreed by the Executive Councillor for Streets & Open Spaces.

c. The ‘S106 Funding: next steps (Communities portfolio)’ report to the Environment and

Community Scrutiny Committee in March 2019 set out:

the arrangements for the 2019 S106 funding round for community facilities (through which funding awards were agreed in June 2019);

generic S106 funding availability for the community facilities, outdoor sports and indoor sports contribution types;

two further recommended outdoor sports projects for generic S106 funding in 2018/19 (approved);

a review of the ‘target lists’ used as a starting point for identifying specific S106 contributions for community facilities; and

a ward-by-ward summary of generic S106-funded projects since 2012 and specific contributions agreed since 2015 in relation to the community facilities, outdoor sports and indoor sports contribution types.

d. The ‘S106 Funding: next steps (Streets & Open Spaces portfolio)’ report to the same

scrutiny committee meeting in March 2019 also covered:

the 2019 S106 funding round process for play areas and open spaces (which culminated in priority-setting decisions in June 2019);

generic S106 funding availability for the play provision, informal open space and public art contribution types;

a reminder of the ‘target lists’ used as a starting point for identifying specific S106 contributions for play areas and open spaces; and

a ward-by-ward summary of generic S106-funded projects since 2012 and specific contributions agreed since 2015 for play areas, open spaces and public art.

e. The Council updated its ‘Overview of S106 funding’ briefing paper in March 2019,

now including a summary of the ‘target lists’ for specific S106 contributions. This can be found on the Council’s S106 web pages at www.cambridge.gov.uk/our-approach-to-s106.

In addition, proposals for specific contributions to be included in S106 agreements for particular major developments were featured in reports on individual planning applications, which were considered by our planning committees. You can find these reports on the Browse meetings page of the Council’s website, searching particularly under links to our Planning Committee and the Joint Development Control Committee (Cambridge Fringes). We hope that you are satisfied with this response. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. For more information about the City Council’s use of S106 contributions, please visit www.cambridge.gov.uk/s106 More details about the appeals process, copyright and the 3C Management Team can be found on the next page.


Appeals Process The Council is committed to transparency and openness, and we aim to comply fully with the laws that govern access to information. If you have any cause to believe that the terms of the FOI Act or EIR Regulations are not being met by us, please let us know in the first instance. If you are still dissatisfied, you can address your complaint to the Information Governance Manager who will undertake an internal review of your case. Internal review requests should be submitted within two months of the date of receipt of the response to your original request. Further to this you have the subsequent option to contact the Information Commissioner’s Office. Copyright Provision of this information does not automatically infer the right to copy, publish or alter the information. In most cases, the Council will own the copyright of the information provided here, or the information will be provided under the Open Government Licence (OGL), but the rights to some information may belong to a third party and, if so, a re- use licence may be required. Please contact us for advice. Information Management Team 3C Shared Services

Telephone: 01954 713318 & 01480 388850 Email: For South Cambridgeshire DC - [email protected] For Cambridge City Council [email protected] For Huntingdonshire DC - [email protected]

3C Shared Services is a strategic partnership between Cambridge City Council, Huntingdonshire District Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council

Local authority2017/18 received

2017/18 agreed, not received

2017/18 expenditure

2018/19 received

2018/19 agreed, not received

2018/19 expenditure Total received

Total agreed, not received

Total Expenditure

Total expenditure - allocated to housing projects

Amount received (£) - for future projects, balance at March 2019

Amount remaining (£) (agreed, not yet received), balance at March 2019

Cambridge City Council £57,913 £892,613 £0 £68,381 £631,118 £12,324 £126,293 £1,523,731 £12,324 £0 £113,969 £1,523,731

Local authority Category 2018/19 drawdownCambridge City Council

Community facilities £458,100

Cambridge City Council

Informal open spaces £319,100


Play provision for children and teenagers £286,200


Outdoor sports £265,500


Indoor sports £320,400


Public art £178,200


Public realm improvements £106,400


Waste facilities £53,200

Report page no. 1 Agenda page no.

Item

S106 COMMUNITY FACILITIES FUNDING ROUND 2018

Key Decision

1. Executive Summary

1.1 In line with the arrangements agreed by the Executive Councillor on

18th January 2018, for the Community Facilities S106 funding round

2018, applications have been invited for proposals to improve

community facilities in Cambridge. Eleven applications have been

received and assessed against the S106 selection criteria. This report

summarises those applications and assessments and makes nine

recommendations for S106 funding.

1.2 This report also takes stock of other S106 issues which come within the

Executive Councillor’s portfolio and:

a) reviews community facilities and outdoor/indoor sports S106 funding

already allocated to particular existing projects;

b) considers further opportunities for allocating community facilities and

outdoor sports S106 funding to projects already identified as

priorities in the Council’s Community Centre Strategy and Playing

Pitch Strategy.

To:

Councillor Richard Johnson, Executive Councillor for Communities

Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee 28/06/2018

Report by:

Jackie Hanson, Community Funding and Development Manager

Tel: (01223) 457867 Email: [email protected]

Wards affected:

Abbey, Arbury, Castle, Cherry Hinton, Coleridge, East Chesterton, King's

Hedges, Market, Newnham, Petersfield, Queen Edith's, Romsey,

Trumpington, West Chesterton

mailto:[email protected]


2. Recommendations

The Executive Councillor is recommended to:

2.1 agree the following S106 Community Facility grants and funding,

detailed in Section 3 and Appendices 1 and 2, subject to:

planning and building control requirements satisfactorily met

business case approval

signed community grant agreement, securing appropriate

community use of the facilities

any other conditions highlighted in the report

Ref Grant Organisation Purpose

R1 £31,000 Cambridge Museum of

Technology

(Abbey)

New kitchen, accessible toilets,

equipment (chairs, projector screen and

speakers)

R2 £50,000 Arbury Community

Centre (King’s Hedges)

Refurbishment and reconfiguration of

large hall

R3 £30,000 St Clement’s Church

(Market)

Platform lift and protective railings around

the lift area to enable main entrance

accessibility

R4 £100,000 St John's Church

(Queen Edith’s)

Extension, new kitchen block, new toilet

block and access, accessibility alterations

front and rear entrances

R5 £24,000 Netherhall School

(Queen Edith’s)

Improvements to dining hall, involving the

removal of the stage and replacing the

flooring increasing available area

R6 £15,000 Nightingale Community

Group

(Queen Edith’s)

Improvements to existing meeting hut in

the community garden at Nightingale

Recreation Ground, including seating,

tables, serving hatch and external rain

shelter with bio-diverse roof

R7 £21,000 Romsey Mill

(Romsey)

Improvements to community room,

kitchen, multi-purpose community hall,

arts room and music studio

R8 £15,000 Empty Common

Community Garden

Group (Trumpington)

Wooden community meeting hut within

Empty Common community garden


Ref Funding Organisation Purpose

R9 All available

generic S106

funding from

Petersfield –

circa £74,600

Cambridge City

Council – funding

allocation

For a Community Facility on the Mill

Road depot site: contribution towards

construction with any surplus funds to

contribute towards the fit out and

equipment for this building

2.2 increase the community facilities S106 funding contribution for the new

Nightingale Avenue Recreation Ground Pavilion from £33,000 up to

£150,000 towards the increased overall project budget of £425,000.

This reduces the outdoor sports S106 funding allocation from £370,000

to no more than £275,000. (Detailed in Section 4).

2.3 allocate up to £250,000 for increased hockey pitch provision, to be

available for community use, at the Cambridge University Sports

Ground, subject to community use agreement. (Detailed in Section 5).

2.4 allocate up to £25,000 of indoor sports S106 funding as a grant to

Netherhall School for the provision of inclusive fitness equipment for its

new community gym and fitness studio. (Detailed in Section 6).

2.5 request officers to review and report back to this Committee any of

these S106-funded projects which do not progress to the

implementation stage within 18 months.

3. S106 Community Facility Grants

3.1. The Council has secured generic, off-site S106 funding from

developers, under a range of contribution types, to help mitigate the

impact of local development prior to the changes to the national

regulations in 2015. An overview can be found at:

www.cambridge.gov.uk/our-approach-to-s106.

3.2 Community facilities S106 funding can be used for ‘the provision of,

improvement of, or better access to’ buildings/structures in which local

people/groups can meet for social or community activities. Examples of

the types of projects which have already been funded using S106

funding include improvements to meeting halls/rooms, upgrades to

kitchens, toilets, storage, furniture and equipment. The current Planning

Obligations Strategy 2010 includes in its definition of community

http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/our-approach-to-s106


facilities those which help meet the varied needs of the residents of

Cambridge, including social activities.

3.3 Following a report on 18 th January 2018 to Community Services

Scrutiny Committee, the Executive Councillor for Communities agreed

the arrangements and selection criteria for the S106 community facilities

2018 funding round. The key points were that:

grant applications for improvements to community facilities in Cambridge would be invited from local groups and organisations (including proposals from officers for improvements to City Council owned or managed buildings);

the funding opportunities would be widely publicised, whilst also managing expectations about variations in S106 funding availability across the city;

the selection criteria would remain much the same as recent S106 rounds (detailed in paragraph 3.7 below);

councillors would have the opportunity to comment on proposals relating to their wards, which are deemed eligible for S106 funding;

the assessment of applications received and recommendations for S106 funding would be reported back to the scrutiny committee meeting on 28 th June 2018.

3.4 There is a finite ‘pot’ of generic, off-site community facilities S106

funding, which is shrinking. This remaining funding is also spread

unevenly spread across the city. The latest provisional analysis of

generic S106 Community Facilities funding availability by ward, rounded

to the nearest £5,000, is set out in the table below:

NORTH EAST

Arbury £0 Abbey £70,000

East Chesterton £50,000 Coleridge £110,000

King’s Hedges £65,000 Petersfield £75,000

West Chesterton £0 Romsey £95,000

SOUTH WEST/CENTRAL

Cherry Hinton 0 Castle £0

Queen Edith’s* £275,000 Market £45,000

Trumpington £85,000 Newnham £0

*includes over £155,000 for new/improved community facilities in the vicinity of the Bell

School site. The remainder is from other sites elsewhere in the ward.


3.5 As explained in the January 2018 report, there are four considerations

regarding this funding availability:

(a) In wards where no ‘community facilities’ S106 funding is available,

it would be difficult to support grant applications.

(b) The ability of projects to mitigate the impact of developments is not

necessarily confined by ward boundaries. It may be possible to

draw on funding from a number of neighbouring wards, particularly

in more densely populated parts of the city, where wards are close

to one another. At the same time, it is more difficult to justify the

use of S106 funds from one ward for a project more than a mile or

so away in another ward, even in the same area.

(c) Previous S106 grants have been around £100k-£150k and

opportunities for grants of a similar size are now limited.

(d) This analysis of funding available represents a point-in-time

snapshot of current S106 funding availability. Officers will continue

to review how remaining unallocated contributions are allocated to

projects. As a result, the profile of funding availability from ward to

ward may change.

3.6 Grant applications were invited from local organisations, including the

Council itself, from early February until the 3 April 2018 deadline.

(a) This was publicised via the Council’s website, news releases,

social media and emails to Councillors, equalities groups and those

who had expressed an interest in applying.

(b) To help manage expectations amongst prospective applicants,

updates in February and March 2018 were posted on the S106

priority-setting web page. The Council regularly reviews funding

allocations to ensure best available ‘fit’.

3.7 The eleven applications received from local organisations have been

assessed by officers, which included visits, against the S106 selection

criteria which focus on the need for proposals to:

(a) be eligible for community facilities S106 funding (e.g. within the city,

not for repairs, maintenance or like-for-like replacements);

(b) be affordable within the ‘community facilities’ S106 funding

available within that part of the city to which the proposal relates;


(c) demonstrate that it would represent an effective use of resources in

line with the city council’s strategic objectives;

(d) provide additional benefit;

(e) be accessible, in line with Council equalities policies;

(f) be realistic, achievable and ready to be considered; and

(g) be financially viable with robust management plans.

3.8 The applications are detailed in Appendix 1 and the assessments are

detailed in Appendix 2. In general, those not recommended for an

award do not meet one or more of the selection criteria above.

4. Nightingale Avenue Recreation Ground Pavilion

4.1 In December 2015, the South Area Committee agreed to allocate

£403,000 of devolved S106 funding for the provision of a new Pavilion

at Nightingale Avenue Recreation Ground. At that time, this improved

facility was primarily for sports and this was reflected in the way that the

budget was made up of £370,000 of outdoor sports S106 contributions

and around £33,000 of community facilities S106 contributions. The

priority-setting decision to allocate funding for this proposal has already

been made and the development of this project has reached an

advance stage. The purpose of including this project in this report is to

primarily review the mix of outdoor sports and community facilities S106

funding.

4.2 Since the project was allocated the £403,000 of S106 funding, three

important factors have come into play.

(a) Consultation with the local community, residents’ association and

Friends of the Recreation Ground has drawn out the need for a

much larger space to be designed within the building to be able to

be used as a community meeting space for local residents, groups

and clubs.

(b) As mentioned in the report to the Community Services Scrutiny

Committee last January, the Building Stronger Communities

Strategy highlighted the need to increase access to community

facilities provision in Queen Edith’s ward.


(c) Further community facilities S106 instalments have been received

from the Bell’s School site developments for new/improved

community facilities in the vicinity of the Bell School site. This would

enable the Council to increase the level of community facilities

S106 funding for this project substantially.

4.3 The design now incorporates a large multifunctional room at the front of

the building along with separate kitchen and storage facilities that can

be used by a wider range of groups. The kitchen will also be specified to

allow for a pop-up community café to be run or just serve teas and

coffees on match days when junior football is in session.

4.4 With the uplift in community meeting space now envisaged within the

building, it would now be appropriate to increase the original allocation

of community facilities S106 contributions from £33,000 up to £150,000,

an increase of up to £117,000. This would reflect the space and

accessibility the pavilion will now offer as a community hub for local

residents rather than just a set of changing room provision for the grass

pitches on the recreation ground.

4.5 Due to the rise in building costs and increase in footprint since the

allocation of the funding an increase of £22,000 on the original

£403,000 budget is now requested, to provide a capital budget of

£425,000 for the delivery of the new facility. These changes would

mean that the levels of outdoor sports S106 funding for the Pavilion

project would reduce from £370,000 to no more than £275,000. The

outdoor sports contributions no longer allocated to this project will be

reinvested in other outdoor sport facility improvement projects in the city

that will benefit the South Area.

4.6 The project team is currently finalising the exterior design, and a

planning application will be submitted in late summer 2018. Assuming

that planning permission is granted and the project then receives

business case approval by the Council’s officer-level Capital

Programme Board, the Recreation team, are hoping to procure the build

through a modular construction technique. This will limit the amount of

construction and disruption time on site and deliver a valuable sporting

and community asset at Nightingale Recreation Ground for all to use.


5. Cambridge University Sports Ground – Hockey Pitches

5.1 It was in the 2015/16 funding round that the Council first received a

S106 funding application from the University of Cambridge, in

partnership with Cambridge City Hockey Club for improved hockey pitch

provision, for community use, at the University’s Sports Ground. The

officer assessment of the application, which was reported to the

Community Services Scrutiny Committee in October 2015, gave it a

provisional ‘yes’. However, the report did not make firm funding

recommendations at the time as sports strategies were still being

developed. Since then, progress has been made on three fronts.

5.2 The joint Playing Pitch Strategy, between the City Council and South

Cambridgeshire District Council was adopted in June 2016. This

identified that, to accommodate future population growth and

development in the sport, a further three artificial sand based pitches

were required for Hockey training and league games. It noted England

Hockey’s approach to facility development for Hockey is to create,

where possible, multi-pitch hubs.

5.3 Work has been ongoing between the University sports department and

Cambridge City Hockley Club culminating in planning permission being

granted in March 2017 (17/0473/FUL) for the addition of two floodlit

hockey pitches on the Wilberforce Road Sports and Athletics complex,

along with the existing floodlit pitch will create a three pitch hockey hub.

5.4 The Council has recently received confirmation that the applicants are

now in a position to move forward with the improved hockey pitch

provision. The Council is being asked for up to £250,000 of Outdoor

Sports S106 contributions as the final funds needed to deliver the

project. This would secure full community use and public access to all

three floodlit pitches and changing facilities within the University’s

Wilberforce Road site.

5.5 This level of investment is in line with other S106 outdoor sport

contributions for single artificial pitch investments over previous years

and the Wilberforce Road site is key to unlocking 3G artificial pitch

provision and future investment around the City and moving all Hockey

play onto sand based artificial pitches.


5.6 The delivery of other artificial pitches at ARU’s site on Howes Place,

and potentially St. Mary’s School sports pitch application for their Long

Road site, and this hockey Hub at Wilberforce Road will completely

deliver on all current and future growth requirements for sand based

pitches for Hockey in both the City and South Cambridgeshire.

6. Netherhall School Gym – Fitness equipment

6.1 The Netherhall Academy made an application in the 2015/16 S106

funding round, which was reported to the Community Services Scrutiny

Committee in October 2015. This requested an indoor sports S106

grant towards fitting out their new community gym with some specialist

pieces of adaptive disabled fitness equipment from the Inclusive Fitness

Initiative (IFI). The application was given a provisional ‘yes’ from officers

but was deferred to be considered at a later time when the delivery

timescale for its wider, community gym had been finalised and was

ready to be delivered. It is this funding (up to £25,000) of indoor sports

S106 funding that is now requested.

6.2 This request is ready to be considered because the Netherhall Academy

is now in a position to deliver the wider community gym project.

Contractors are in place and are planned to start in July for completion

in October. This will convert some space within its sports centre to

provide a 30 station gym and a fitness/martial arts studio. This new

community gym will be available for school use during the day and open

for public use from 5pm onwards weekdays and 9am-7pm at the

weekends. This wider community gym project is being part-funded by

S106 contributions from the Bell School site development and from an

additional £64,000 of indoor sports S106 funding that was allocated in

2014/15.

6.3 The Academy is working with the Active Lifestyles team on the new

community gym project and the gym will become a referral centre on the

City’s Exercise Referral programme. The community gym will be

available for public use after school hours, but the Academy will be

offering set times during the day within curricular hours for exclusive

sessions for exercise referral, cancer rehabilitation, and works with

Addenbrookes outpatients.

6.4 As the community gym project is entering into the delivery stage the

Academy now requests their application for funds of up to £25,000 for


the IFI equipment be considered to help fit out the gym with 4-6 pieces

of adaptive equipment for community use.

7. Implications

7.1. Financial implications: This report has already highlighted that generic

S106 funds are running down and are not evenly spread.

7.2 Depending on the projects allocated S106 funding in this grant round (in

terms of size and ward location), future rounds may need to be more

narrowly focused on certain parts of the city. Consideration may also

need to be given to using residual generic contributions to supplement

the funding of projects for which specific projects are being collected.

7.3. Staffing implications: Most projects funded from ‘community facilities’

S106 contributions tend to be based on grants to community groups and

local organisations. Council officers are involved in developing business

cases and community use agreements, before grants can be issued,

and then supporting and monitoring the grant recipients’ project delivery

progress and compliance with grant agreements.

7.4 Equality and Poverty implications: The arrangements and selection

criteria for S106 funding aim to provide a fair and consistent approach

for priority-setting decisions. In line with the existing equality impact

assessment of the arrangements for S106 priority-setting rounds,

officers raised awareness of the S106 funding round and bidding

process amongst groups representing the range of equality strands,

whilst managing expectations about the availability of S106 funds.

7.5 All successful S106 grant applicants are required to sign a community

use agreement. This confirms that the facilities being improved through

a S106-funded project will be made accessible to the public and this

clearly highlights all of the protected characteristics.

7.6 Other implications: Environmental, community safety and procurement

implications are addressed as part of the business case appraisal for

projects that are selected via the S106 priority-setting process.


8. Consultation and communication considerations

8.1 The arrangements taken to publicise the funding available and

application process is detailed in 3.4.

9. Background papers

Background papers used in the preparation of this report:

(a) ‘Community facilities S106 funding’ report to Community Services

Scrutiny Committee on 18 th January 2018

Further information (can be found at the Council’s Developer

Contributions web page (www.cambridge.gov.uk/s106).

(b) Playing Pitch Strategy – Click here

10. Appendices

Appendix 1 - Applications for S106 Community Facility Funding Appendix 2 - Assessment Summary

11. Inspection of papers

To inspect the background papers or if you have a query on the report

please contact:

Tim Wetherfield, Urban Growth Project Manager

(tel: 01223-457313, email: [email protected]) or

Jackie Hanson, Community Funding Development Manager

(tel: 01223-457867, email: [email protected]).

http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/s106

https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public/ldf/coredocs/RD-CSF/rd-csf-190.pdf



A: Award Recommended

Project Ward and full project cost

Comments Bid/Award amount

R1 Cambridge Museum of Technology Accessible toilets, new kitchen, stacking chairs, projector, screen and speakers.

Abbey £393,000

Award recommended - bid was £14k but on assessment increasing funding would meet the funding gap and enable additional equipment Abbey highlighted as a gap in the Community Centres Strategy

£31,000

R1 Arbury Community Centre Reconfigure and refurbish the large hall enabling the hall to be warmer in winter and cooler in summer. Renew furniture and curtains. Replace fire doors.

King’s Hedges £75,000

Award recommended - excluding the door replacement element which is maintenance King’s hedges highlighted as a priority area in the Community Centres Strategy

£50,000

R3 St Clement’s Church Accessible entrance – platform lift and railings. Also creating a new multi-purpose space for wider community use, with new accessible kitchen and toilets.

Market £38,000

Award recommended - bid was £18k but on assessment increasing funding will assist with wider project to provide accessible facilities to the wider community

£30,000

R4 St John's Church, Hills Road New kitchen, toilet block, accessibility alterations to garden, front and rear entrances, improved safety exits, canopy protected weather cover for toilet access.

Queen Edith’s £290,000

Award recommended - excluding garden alterations, to enable the building to be a well utilized community space for new and existing communities Queen Edith’s highlighted in the Community Centres Strategy

£100,000

Appendix 1 – Summary of S106 Community Facility Applications 2018

R5 Netherhall School Remove the staging and replace flooring in the dining room to enable a larger community meeting space.


Award recommended to enable a larger meeting space with a community hire rate Queen Edith’s highlighted in the Community Centres Strategy

£24,000

R6 Nightingale Recreation Ground Improvements to existing meeting hut in the community garden, including seating, tables, service hatch and external rain shelter with bio-diverse roof.


Award recommended – compliments the other projects in Queen Edith’s and brings together new and existing communities in free facilities

£15,000

R7 Romsey Mill Improvements to community room, kitchen, community hall, creative arts space and music studio. Includes storage, equipment, carpets and redecoration.

Romsey £59,000

Award recommended – the contribution requested will cover eligible spend and not maintenance elements of the wider project

£21,000

R8 Empty Common Community Garden New community meeting hut within the open access garden.

Trumpington £21,000

Award recommended – the hut will increase the flexibility and range of activities the area can provide to an already popular garden space used by all ages. Bid £18k, reduced to meet smaller grant level.

£15,000

R9 Mill Road Depot Site Community centre development and construction alongside specific contributions secured for the project.

Petersfield

Award recommended – allocate the funding for the construction and any surplus to be spent on fitting out the new facility

£75,000

B: No Award Recommended

Project Ward and full project cost

Comments Bid

N1 Bath House, Gwydir Street Replace two entrance double doors, two internal doors and two external fire doors

Petersfield £12,500

No award recommended – repairs and maintenance

£10,500

N2 King’s Church Forecourt restoration – block paving

Petersfield £15,000

No award recommended - esthetical improvements, no increase meeting space and income received from letting out car park

£9,000

SELECTION CRITERIA Re

co

mm

en

da

tion

Elig

ible

Affo

rda

ble

Effe

ctiv

e u

se

Additio

nality

Acce

ssib

le

Re

ady

Via

ble

Location Ward S106 Bid a b c d e f g

R1 Cambridge Museum of Technology Abbey £14k Yes

R2 Arbury Community Centre King’s Hedges £50k Yes

R3 St Clement’s Church Market £18k Yes

R4 St John's Church Queen Edith’s £100k Yes

R5 Netherhall School Queen Edith’s £24k Yes

R6 Nightingale Rec Ground Community Building Queen Edith’s £15k Yes

R7 Romsey Mill Romsey £21k Yes

R8 Empty Common Community Building Trumpington £18k Yes

R9 Mill Road Depot Community Centre Petersfield £75k Yes

N1 Bath House, Gwydir Street Petersfield £10.5k x No

N2 King’s Church Petersfield £9k x No

Appendix 2 – Assessment Summary of S106 Community Facility Applications 2018


Item

PUBLIC ART POLICY AND STRATEGY

2018-19 AND PUBLIC ART SMALL-SCALE

S106 GRANTS 2018

Key Decision

1. Executive Summary

1.1 Community Services Scrutiny Committee on 18 January 2018

considered a report on how the Council can mitigate the impact of

development through public art. The report set out the future aspirations

for public art in the City, and the need to develop a Public Art Strategy,

which addresses changes to the national planning system and planning

regulations, and supports the new Local Plan. Officers committed to

update the Scrutiny Committee in June 2018.

1.2 This report clarifies our current policy position for the inclusion of public

art within new development and is drafted with technical input from the

Planning Policy team, set in the context of the Local Plan. It also sets

out the Council’s plans to: (a) review the Planning Obligations

Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which will include a separate

To: Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee – 28 June 2018

Report by:

Alistair Wilson, Streets and Open Space - Development Manager

Tel: 01223 458514; Email: [email protected]

Wards affected:

All


review of the current Public Art policy; (b) review the commissioning

processes to comply with changes in the Planning system; (c) improve

future public art delivery, whether through the Planning process; or the

Council’s own commissioning capital programme; and (d) develop a

Public Art Strategy for the city.

1.3 The report to the Community Services Scrutiny Committee in January

2018, also set out the approach to the Council’s 2018 small-scale (up to

£15,000) public art S106 grant-funding round, as a first step alongside

possibilities for subsequent larger grants and future Council led

commissions. Twenty one grant applications have been received and

assessed against the agreed selection criteria. More details can be

found in section 5 of this report; and on the Council’s Public Art Grants

web page (www.cambridge.gov.uk/public-art-grants).

1.4 Officers recommend grant-funding for five of these small-scale public art

projects (totalling £89k), plus earmarking funding for another two

proposals (totalling £25k), that would benefit from further development.

This reflects both the emphasis on focusing on high quality public art

that meets the S106 selection criteria and the value of holding some

public art S106 funding back to enable the Council to afford some

further projects as part of its future Public Art Strategy. Paragraph 6.1

sets out the remaining availability of public art S106 funding for local

projects on the basis that the recommendations are approved.

2. Recommendations


2.1 Support and approve the development of a new Public Art Strategy for

the city.

2.2 Allocate the following small-scale public art S106 grants, subject to

grant agreement and any other conditions set out below (see Section 5

and Appendix 1):


a. £15,000 grant to The Cambridge Junction for the ‘News, News,

News’ project;

b. £15,000 grant to the In Your Way Festival for the ‘Theatre as

Architecture: Architecture as Theatre’ project;

c. £14,000 grant to New International Encounter (NIE) Theatre for

the ‘Tales from the Edge of Town 2070’ project;

d. £15,000 grant to Rowan Humberstone for the ‘Ecology Sculpture

at Sheep’s Green’ project; and

e. £30,000 grant to Unison for the ‘Faith and Hope’ commemoration

of the 100th anniversary of votes for women, subject to business

case approval.

2.3 Earmark public art S106 funding for the following public art proposals

(subject to review/confirmation within 12 months), which have potential

but which would benefit from further development with support and

advice from the Public Art Officer.

i. £10,000 earmarked as a possible grant to Chesterton Community

Association for its Chesterton Village Sign proposal;

ii. £15,000 earmarked as a possible grant to HistoryWorks for its

proposal called ‘Travellers and Outsiders: Stourbridge

Soundscapes Across Time’.

3. Background

3.1 The future of public art in Cambridge can be delivered through both

national and local planning policy. The National Planning Policy

Guidance (NPPG) supports public art as part of well-designed spaces

and the Local Plan 2014 “is committed to the provision of public art

within developments and in the public realm.”

3.2 The National Planning Framework (NPPF) incorporates public art for the

first time in national planning policy with the objective of promoting

cultural wellbeing. Particular reference is made to the provision of

public art within the NPPG, which accompanies the NPPF. In particular,


the NPPG observes that public art can be integral to providing well

designed spaces:

“Public art and sculpture can play an important role in making

interesting and exciting places that people enjoy using.”

3.3 The Council’s 2010 Public Art SPD continues to be used to support

existing Local Plan policies until the new Local Plan is adopted. The

document sets out the justification for the inclusion of public art within

new development and why it is acceptable in planning terms. Upon the

adoption of the new Local Plan, the Council will update the Planning

Obligations SPD to include public art.

3.4 The Cambridge Local Plan Submission 2014 also supports the inclusion

of public art within new development through the following policies:

Policy 56 (Creating successful places); Policy 59 (Designing landscape

and the public realm) and; Policy 85 (Infrastructure delivery, planning

obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)). The policies

all seek to ensure public art is seen as an integral and integrated part of

a development proposal, rather than as a ‘nice to have’ addition.

4. 2018 Public Art Strategy and Public Art Plan

4.1 The Council’s Public Art Policy has delivered a range of public art using

developments. Many local authorities have used the Cambridge Public

Art SPD as a model for introducing or reinforcing existing public art

policies.

4.2 Since the adoption of the Council’s Public Art SPD there have been

changes in the planning system, which require the document to be

reviewed, in particular:

how to determine the budget set in the context of the overall development costs.

the process of justification for the inclusion of public art within new development; and

the development of an evidence base for proposing new public art projects from off-site s106 contributions.


4.3 The introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and its

relationship with public art also requires consideration. Without the

Public Art SPD, the city would not have delivered public art to the quality

it has been over the last 8 years and it is crucial going forward that the

SPD is reviewed, revised and updated to provide detailed processes

and guidance for public art to continue to support Local and National

Planning Policies to deliver good design and outstanding new

communities and places.

4.4 Since the adoption of the 2010 Public Art SPD a high number of public

art projects have been realised. The Council therefore now has a

detailed evidence base to aid the development a new Public Art

Strategy. These projects include all different forms of public art from

permanent sculpture and socially engaged projects to urban art. The

Council can now consult with developers, art consultants, artists and

most importantly the community, to assess the impact of public art and

evaluate projects and budgets, etc. This will enable us to shape the

future policy from experience and in essence have a ‘Big Conversation’

about the future direction of public art in Cambridge.

4.5 As part of the review process we will be consulting a broad range of

stakeholders and interested parties on key issues, evaluating delivered

public art projects and assessing the Council’s role in that process and,

engaging with the community to consider the impacts of public art using

a range of methods, including:

Issues and options consultation;

a public art survey;

two or three workshops with developers, artists, art consultants and members of the community who have been engaged with public art projects;

evaluating delivered public art projects in terms of quality, impact and budget; and

evaluating types of public art projects and artistic practice to understand and promote the benefits for different types, forms and timespans of art in the public realm.


4.6 The review process will also provide the opportunity to clarify how on

site public art will be secured. For developer-led provision, the current

preference at this time is via planning conditions but where it has been

demonstrated that a development cannot accommodate public art

provision on-site, a S106 Planning Obligation might be used to provide it

off site for exceptional circumstances

4.7 The preparation of the Public Art Strategy will include a Commissioning

Strategy for the City, which will provide evidence of community needs

and projects where off site public art can mitigate the impact of

development. The Commissioning Strategy will also provide an

evidence base for future capital projects and will include regeneration

initiatives and improvements being put forward by the City Council,

South Cambridgeshire District Council, County Council and others such

as public realm improvements like the Market Square.

4.8 Currently the Public Art SPD requires 1% of capital construction costs of

a development to be allocated as a budget for public art. This approach

to agreeing budgets is no longer considered appropriate due to changes

to national planning policy and therefore the Council must develop new

ways of setting budgets with developers. Although the 1% of capital

construction costs calculation provided medium size developments with

appropriate budgets to deliver public art projects to mitigate the impact

of development, it failed to deliver budgets high enough to achieve the

same on smaller sites (less than 11 households) and generated too

much on very large sites. The Council will carry out research to help

justify propose budget calculations that incorporate all the costs in

developing and delivering public art projects.

4.9 The Public Art Strategy will also enable the Council to explore the

potential of public art delivery within the context of the Greater

Cambridge sub region. In particular, it will enable the Council to clarify

its position on sites, which share a boundary with South Cambridgeshire

District and where currently the City Council’s Public Art Officer deals

with public art on behalf of the two local authorities. It will also allow the

City Council to enter into discussion regarding sites that fall within the


South Cambridgeshire district boundary but are read as being within the

City of Cambridge.

4.10 The Council is in the process of updating its website to promote public

art. This will continue over the coming months. Training will be

developed and provided for Members and Officers on the delivery of

Public Art and walking tours offered as part of that process.

4.11 The exact structure of the new Public Art Strategy has yet to be

confirmed but will include the following key elements:

Manifesto for Public Art – A celebration of public art in Cambridge

and a declaration of the aims to support public art over the next 10

years to ensure quality projects are developed.

Public Art Strategy

Evaluation;

Public Art Plan;

Public Art Commissioning Strategy;

Guidance for Developing and Delivering a Public Art Project; and

Urban Art Strategy

Officers currently envisage that the Manifesto will be reported to the

Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee in late 2018 or early

2019.

4.12 Until any further future off-site public art contributions are secured, in

developing a Public Art Commissioning Strategy for Cambridge, officers

will need to take account of the finite amount of remaining off-site

contributions already received. They will also need to consider which

parts of the city these unallocated contributions relate to, in order to

determine how the funding can be used to the maximum public benefit.

This process is likely to include making proposals for future Council

commissions in the context of the financial implications set out in

paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2.


5. Public Art Small-Scale S106 Grants 2018

5.1 The annual small-scale public art S106 grant rounds since 2015 have

helped to engage the local community in public art and ensure on-going

spend of public art S106 funding. This has also helped to make sure

that it can be spent in a timely manner (ahead of any expiry dates for

relevant S106 contributions). However, in the context of S106 funding

constraints, the January 2018 highlighted that the 2018 small-scale

public art grant round could be the last of its kind and that the emphasis

would be on encouraging (only) high quality public art. The limitations

on funding availability were reinforced in updates on the Council’s

Public Arts Grants web page in February. This highlighted that:

there was sufficient funding available in each of the following wards

for a grant of up to £15,000: Abbey, Cherry Hinton, Coleridge, King's

Hedges, Market, Newnham, Queen Edith's, Romsey, Trumpington

and West Chesterton.

a public art grant between £10,000 and £15,000 may be possible in

each of Arbury, East Chesterton and Petersfield.

it was not worth applying for a grant for a public art proposal

focussed on Castle ward – all public art S106 contributions there

have already been allocated.

applicants may seek a grant of up to £15,000 for a proposal relating

to more than one ward of the city.

5.2 Trumpington, Coleridge and Romsey wards have particularly significant

sums of public art S106 funding available. However, the January 2018

report made clear that, whilst a ward may have £15,000 or more, that

does not mean that a grant has to be funded in that ward – it will

depend on the quality of the proposal. This is important; not least to

leave sufficient funding in some parts of the city for significant future

public art commissions projects by the Council.

5.3 In line with the Public Art SPD 2010, the selection criteria for this 2018

funding round (agreed by the Executive Councillor last January) stated

that - to be eligible for public art funding - projects should:


Be publicly accessible;

Be within the city of Cambridge;

Engage local communities;

Be unique and original;

Be led by a professional artist or craftsperson;

Involve the appropriate remuneration of professional artists;

Be site or context sensitive;

Demonstrate excellent artistic quality (in concepts & project delivery)

Have a lasting legacy; and

Be feasible, deliverable and have appropriate project management

plans in place.

5.4 The application stage of the 2018 small-scale Public Art grant funding

round opened in late January and closed on 3 April 2018, alongside the

bidding process for the community facilities S106 funding. As planned,

the following steps were taken.

a. The funding opportunity was publicised via a press release, direct

emails to arts organisations and community groups (as well as

councilors and equalities groups), targeted conversations to

encourage applications, social media and information on the

council’s Public Art grants web page.

b. Applicants’ attention was drawn to a guidance pack, designed to

help explain the selection criteria and how to make a successful

application.

c. Applicants were encouraged to engage with officers’ for help and

advice on their applications – and some took up this offer.

d. Alongside the assessment of the applications against the selection

criteria (detailed below) councillors were circulated a briefing note on

all the applications received and were asked for their comments.

This feedback is summarised in Appendix 2.

5.5 All 21 applications received have been assessed against the selection

criteria by a panel including officers (with responsibilities for public art,

culture and community and S106 funding co-ordination) and two

external experts (Dipak Mistry and Andy Robinson) from the Council’s


advisory Public Art Panel. See Appendix 1 for more details. This

process is particularly important in order to identify those project

proposals that would be eligible for the public art S106 funding on which

these grants are based.

Table 1: Summary of the assessment of the grant applications

Project proposal (and ward location) Eligible?

A Places of well-being, processes of collaboration (Queen Edith’s) No

B Common Ground (Trumpington) No

C Eco Living Festival plastic waste art installation (multiple wards) No

D Multi-sensory area at Cherry Hinton Folk Festival (Cherry Hinton) No

E News, News, News (Coleridge) Yes

F What Women Want (city-wide) No

G Crowded Room (Cherry Hinton) No

H Chesterton Village sign (East Chesterton) Potential

I Growing Spaces short film (city-wide) No

J Histon Road gateway arch (Arbury) No

K Coprolite Chorus (Abbey, Coleridge, Petersfield, Romsey) No

L Trades of Romsey and Petersfield (Petersfield/Romsey) No

M Travellers and Outsiders (Abbey) Potential

N Reflection Cloud (city-wide) No

O ‘Theatre as Architecture, Architecture as Theatre’ (city-wide) Yes

P Coton Corner enhancement (Newnham) No

Q Tales from the Edge of Town 2070 (Trumpington/Cherry Hinton) Yes

R Nun’s Way Pavilion mural (King’s Hedges) No

S Spheres of Influence (multiple wards) No

T Ecology Sculpture on Sheep’s Green (Newnham) Yes

U Faith & Hope: Suffragette commemoration (city-wide) Yes

5.6 Next steps: Following scrutiny by the Committee and the Executive

Councillor’s decision on the recommendation 2.2, officers will liaise with

the successful grant applicants on the details of their grant agreements,

addressing any particular issues highlighted in the assessments in

Appendix 1.


a. For projects which relate to particular wards, officers intend to fund

those projects from public art S106 contributions from the same

wards (or from nearby developments in neighbouring wards if there is

a particularly close relationship between a development and a

project).

b. Any projects that are city-wide in nature will be funded from public art

contributions from developments across the city. This would apply,

for example, in the case of the ‘Theatre as Architecture: Architecture

as Theatre’ and ‘Faith and Hope’ projects.

c. All but one of the grant applications seek £15,000 or less each and, if

selected for S106 funding, would therefore be taken forward without

a business case to the council’s officer-level Capital Programme

Board. Even so, officers will carry out checks to make sure that the

project details and implementation arrangements for selected

projects are realistic, robust and eligible for S106 funding.

d. If the ‘Faith and Hope’ grant application from Unison is selected, this

£30,000 grant would be subject to business case approval and is

likely to require a legally-binding grant agreement.

5.7 The Public Art Officer will also work closely with the two applicants

whose proposals have been recommended for earmarked S106 funding

(see paragraph 2.3) on the basis that these can be developed in more

detail and in a way that would satisfy the selection criteria fully. These

two cases will be reviewed within the next 12 months and reported back

to this Committee for an update.

6. Implications

6.1 Financial implications: The development of the Public Art component

of the SPD and Strategy will be met within existing budgets.

6.2 Paragraphs 4.12 and 5.1 have already highlighted the limited remaining

S106 funding availability. The Council’s provision of small-scale grants,

alongside commissioning larger projects itself, has helped to manage

public S106 funds within any expiry dates. If the Executive Councillor


agrees the recommended grants and earmarked funding in paragrpahs

2.2 and 2.3, this could mean that:

a. there would be no off-site public art S106 funding left in Arbury,

Castle, East Chesterton and Newnham wards;

b. There could be less than £10,000 or so in each of Abbey, King’s

Hedges, Market, Petersfield, Queen Edith’s and West Chesterton

wards.

c. only four wards would have higher levels of S106 funding still

available for local projects: Cherry Hinton (over £20,000); Romsey

(around £60,000), Coleridge (over £65,000) and Trumpington (over

£95,000).

6.3 These estimates of remaining unallocated public art S106 funding have

taken account of the £120,000 of public art contributions already

allocated to the on-going River Cam public art residency and a further

£330,000 provisionally allocated to the wider River Cam public art

programme (for which other projects are still to be developed. The exact

uses of this £330,000 will need to be considered in the light of the

Residency project and in the context of the developing Public Art

Strategy.

a. The approach to the River Cam public art programme was reported

to the Community Services Scrutiny Committee in January 2018 and

agreed by the Executive Councillor. This report explained that the

exact uses of this £330,000 will need to be considered in the light of

the residency.

b. The development of the Public Art Strategy provides an opportunity

to set this review of the £330,000 in the context of exploring possible

uses of the remaining public art S106 contributions mentioned in

paragraph 6.2. This would help to make sure that all of this public art

S106 funding is managed effectively (that is, in line with official

regulations and S106 agreements and strengthening links between

where the contributions are from and where they are spent). It would

also help to maximise the benefits and impact of providing high

quality public art in Cambridge.


6.4 Staffing implications: There are no staffing implications arising from

the recommendations in this report

6.5 Equality and Poverty implications: The Council’s approach to public

art expects that it should be freely and widely accessible. The guidance

for this small-scale public art S106 grant round (explaining the selection

criteria) makes clear that all projects should be as inclusive as possible

and that all projects should uphold the Council’s commitment to equality

and diversity. For S106-funded projects, officers also have to consider

how these projects help to mitigate the impact of development in

Cambridge.

Three grant applications, featured in the recommendations in

paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3, are particularly related to promoting equality

and celebrating diversity:

a. Unison’s application to celebrate the centenary of women’s right

to vote;

b. The grant application for the Sheep’s Green Equality Sculpture

has been made by Rowan, a Cambridge-based art centre which

works primarily with adults with learning disabilities; and

c. HistoryWorks’ application for a public art project around the theme

of travellers and outsiders seeks to engage local communities to

learn from one another and listen to stories and experiences

which may not have been heard or understood.

6.6 Environmental Implications

The provision of public art in the city adds to the interest, variety and

quality of the public realm.

Officers will work closely with applicants to make sure that the grant

projects are taken forward in a way that promotes good environmental

stewardship.


6.7 Procurement Implications

The Public Art Strategy will review public art procurement and make

best practice recommendations.

6.8 Community Safety Implications

The inclusion of works of art in public places can make them more

attractive and encourage people to use them. Maintenance of public art

is also an important consideration in assessing proposals. For

instance, the ability to withstand vandalism and weathering should be

demonstrated. Ongoing maintenance details are required to accompany

all public art scheme submissions.

6.9 Consultation and communication considerations

The development of the Public Art Strategy will involve consultation with

key stakeholders and the community as set out in paragraph 4.5 of this

report.

7. Background papers

Public Art SPD www.cambridge.gov.uk/public-art-spd

Public Art on the City Council website www.cambridge.gov.uk/public-art

Public Art Grants 2018 Guidance Pack

Collated (redacted) grant applications 2018

8. Appendices

Appendix 1 – Assessment of the 2018 small-scale Public Art grant

funding applications

Appendix 2 - Comments received from councilors on public art

grant applications

http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public-art-spd

http://www.cambridge.gov.uk/public-art


9. Inspection of papers

To inspect the background papers, or if you have a query on the report,

please contact:

Alistair Wilson, Development Manager

tel: 01223 458514; email: [email protected]



Summary of 2018/19 Public Art Grants and Assessment Appendix 1

Please refer to paragraph 5.3 of the committee report, which sets out the assessment criteria for the applications.

Recommended applications

Grant Proposal Summary of Proposal Summary of Assessment and Notes

E: NEWS, NEWS, NEWS Applicant: Cambridge Junction Ward: Coleridge/City wide Grant request: £15,000 Already raised: £10,000 Project cost: £40,000 Expected start: November 2018 Expected finish: March 2019

Artists Andy Field and Becky Darlington prepare a live multimedia performance for the Junction, where local children (Ridgefield School) have been involved in the making of their own local news themed production, including live and pre-recorded elements.

Recommended, subject to the award of Arts Council funding. This will be the first performance of this concept by Andy Field in Cambridge and has the potential to be toured around the country later on. The topic enables local children to engage with the arts, consider local and national issues through the exploration and production of their own ‘news’ programme. Public Art team were contacted on the application and sought clarification about feasibility if other funding did not come through. Arts Council funding has been confirmed.



O: Theatre as Architecture, Architecture as Theatre: KHOR II Applicant: In Your Way Festival Ward: City wide Grant request: £15,000 Project Budget: £63,000 Already raised: £18,300

Tourable concept. It is a Do-It-Together (DIT) theatrical installation consisting of a large scale building kit which is built over the course of a day by a diverse group of 20 residents from across the city that represent the wider population of Cambridge. The project uses a transdisciplinary mix of theatre and architecture to raise questions around social integration, participation and cultural diversity which are addressed in a playful, hands on manner.

Recommended. The project has confirmed that have match funding from the Arts Council for £15k. This is a high quality and engaging proposal with a Cambridge context. Keen to ensure that the resulting performance is free to access, otherwise this is a high quality bid that we wish to support. Public Art team were contacted on the application and sought clarification about feasibility if other funding did not come through.

Q: TALES FROM THE EDGE OF TOWN 2070 Applicant: NIE Theatre Ward: Trumpington & Cherry Hinton Grant request: £15,000 Project budget: £33,000 Already raised: £18,000

Inviting children from a primary school in Cherry Hinton and a school in Trumpington to think about the future and envision what their neighbourhood/city will look like in 2070. Workshop processes will capture stories in performance, film, songs and visual art. Resulting works will be performed and projected. Includes end installation at E-Luminate. £17,000 of other funding has been

Recommended. This project has taken on board the feedback from the previous round and has strengthened the artistic concept and delivery details. Has sought partner funding and been successful. Would like to investigate why Queen Ediths has not been included in the project area and perhaps recommend its inclusion.



secured to support the project.

T: ECOLOGY SCULPTURE AT SHEEP’S GREEN Applicant: Rowan Ward: Newnham Grant request: £14,000 Project budget: £14,000 Expected start: July 2018 Expected finish: March 2019

Sculptural installation made in wood for Sheep's Green to reflect history and biodiversity of the site, encourage use of the open space, that children can interact with and can be home to insects. Noticeboard/explanatory component.

Recommended. Sensible and considered project exploring an important environmental theme, supporting an organisation that works with adults with learning disabilities. Initial engagement with the community and key officers has been undertaken.

U: FAITH AND HOPE Applicant: Unison Ward: Market/citywide Grant request: £30,000 Project budget: £30,000 Expected start: Sept 2018 Expected finish: Decr 2018

Unison would like to commission a Public Art Project to explore the Suffrage Movement in Cambridge and the subsequent role of woman in politics and public life over the last 100 years. The project is to mark the 100th anniversary of Representation of the People’s Act (start of women getting the vote). The project will be led by artist Emma Smith and a budget of £30,000 will allow for a scale of project the subject matter deserves. The project will be based in the Guildhall and have the Guildhall as a focus but will be

Recommended, subject to presentation to Capital Programme Board. Recommended on the basis of meeting the Council’s equalities objectives and celebrating the centenary year of the women’s vote. Whilst the end outcome is not yet known, this commission involves an extremely high profile and high calibre artist. Would recommend that this project engages with the applicants for project F in some way. The Public Art Officer provided advice on this application.



inclusive to the whole city. The project will involve participation from Cambridge residents and tell the story of women’s lives and how woman have contributed to the way Cambridge has developed since 1918 both politically and socially.

Applications that have potential, but need further development


H: CHESTERTON VILLAGE SIGN Applicant: Chesterton Community Association Ward: Chesterton Grant request: £10,000 Already raised: £207 Project budget: £10,207 Expected start: August 2018 Expected finish: August 2019

The creation of a village sign for the Chesterton area. Artists not appointed and process of engagement not yet known.

Recommended subject to Public Art Team development and advice. This grant application seeks to secure off site contributions for the purpose of a Chesterton Village sign. This project will require the support and advice of the Public Art Team to assist the community group in commissioning an artist and preparing a project brief that can be delivered within 1 year.



M1: TRAVELLERS AND OUTSIDERS STOURBRIDE SOUNDSCAPES ACROSS TIME Applicant: HistoryWorks Ward: Abbey/Citywide Grant request: £15,000 Project budget: £15,000 Expected start: Sept 2018 Expected finish: Sept 2019

Films, sound poems and immersive installations. Sound poem installation at the site of the Stourbridge Fair collected through participatory workshops.

Recommended subject to further development with the Public Art Team. The assessment panel would like to support this project but it needs to be reworked with the Public Art Team. The scope of the application at the moment is a bit unclear, and we would like to look at a one year project rather than two. Recommended for approval on the basis of supporting the Council's Single Equalities Charter.

Applications that are Not Eligible


A: PLACES OF WELLBEING PROCESS OF COLLABORATION Applicant: Addenbrooke’s Arts with Queen Ediths Community Forum Ward: Queen Ediths Grant request: £14,835 Project budget: £21,535

A series of artist-led community events (some in the Queen Edith’s ward and some in Addenbrooke’s hospital) led by two artists working in different art forms (visual arts and poetry) designed to foster engagement between the hospital community and local residents and to result in a pair of semi-

Whilst Addenbrooke’s Arts are experienced at delivering commissions, it was felt that the budget allocation was too small for the implementation of two semi-permanent outcomes as well as the engagement process. Not eligible on the basis of quality and unclear aims.



Already raised: £6,700 Expected start: July 2018 Expected finish: Summer 2019

permanent public artworks - one located in Nightingale Park and one on the Addenbrooke’s campus.

B: COMMON GROUND Applicant: Cambridge Curiosity and Imagination Ward: Trumpington Grant request: £14,948 Already raised: some in kind support Expected start: October 2018 Expected finish: August 2019

Co-creation of stories and poetry culminating in an exhibition, publication and spoken word event at Clay Farm Community Centre. Volunteers collecting stories, writer and artist led workshops.

There were questions about the originality of the project given the format and the application in Trumpington, particularly given the existing Trumpington Voices project and the involvement of Menagerie. Whilst we agree that CCI would be a good organisation to support, this project is possibly doubling up on existing projects already there and does not offer anything sufficiently new/original to the ward.

C: PLASTIC WASTE ART INSTALLATION Applicant: Cambridge Eco Living Festival Ward: Market Grant request: £14,500 Already raised: In kind support Expected start: July 2018 Expected finish: November 2018

A new plastic debris art sculpture, comprising of thousands of pieces of plastic waste and debris collected from a combination of community non-recyclable household plastic waste heading for local landfill, and plastic debris found around the Norfolk coast. To be installed at the Museum of Zoology as part of the Cambridge Eco Living Festival

With a limited exhibition window, this was not publicly accessible to the same extent as other projects. In addition, whilst this is on an important environmental theme it is not one of the best examples of its kind (there are other artists working with plastic waste that produce much higher quality outcomes). There were questions about the level of Cambridge based engagement, outside of the exhibition itself - it is not as 'Cambridge' focused as



other projects and therefore does not meet the site context criteria as well as other bids. The other bid from Market ward meets other strategic aims.

D: MULTI SENSORY AREA Applicant: Cambridge Folk Festival Ward: Cherry Hinton Grant Request: £8,421.60 Budget total: £8,421.60 Expected Start: May 2018 Expected finish: August 2018

Multi-sensory art installation experiences in the disabled area of the festival. A series of six workshops in the lead up to the festival to design the temporary art installations.

We advised that the decision about funding will not be known until July 2018. Given this, it is unlikely that meaningful engagement could be carried out prior to the event. In addition, it was felt that the ticketed access to the festival was both restrictive and meant that the project wasn’t strictly focused on a Cambridge audience. Whilst the concept is a good one, it was deemed unfeasible within budget proposed and that outcomes would not be of high enough quality to leave a lasting legacy to this festival or indeed others around the country.

F: WHAT WOMEN WANT Applicant: Cathy Dunbar Ward: City wide Grant request: £6,603 Already raised: £1,150 Expected start: May 2018 Expected finish: Feb 2019

A series of 15-20 stitched and painted banners made by women's groups in the city, through workshops and guided sessions, with an exhibition in the Museum of Cambridge.

Not eligible on feasibility, project management, originality and artistic quality. Assumes start date before the grant round decision. There are other funding routes that are more suitable for this project (through vote 100 central government, for example). A project like this is already under way so it is not



meeting originality criteria and there were concerns about the costs being underestimated. Legacy criteria - uncertain as project would be dependent on the group securing exhibition space for the work. Recommended that these applicants link with applicants for U: Faith and Hope.

G: CROWDED ROOM: Applicant: Cherry Hinton Festival Society Ward: Cherry Hinton Grant Request: £11,301 Project budget: Not given Expected start: September 2018 Expected finish: Not known

Community portrait through Tim Mann's 'Crowded Room' concept. Outlines of people in the community put together with an ambition to have the final work displayed on an exterior wall of the new Cherry Hinton Library.

Not eligible on basis of quality, feasibility and project management. The proposed building is yet to be developed and as this type of project has not been done on an external wall before there are concerns that the budget proposals are therefore not realistic. The project group have submitted further information after the submission and propose to work on an internal wall. The Panel view is that this change does not elevate the conceptual integrity of the project, which could be stronger in terms of execution, originality and engagement outcome.

I: SHORT FILM Applicant: Growing Spaces Ward: City wide Grant request: £1,500

Short film about the work of Growing Spaces at sites of their voluntary work around the city.

Whilst this is a good cause and a small budget, this is a promotional film and not eligible as a public art concept or project.



Already raised: £175 plus in kind support Expected start: July 2018 Expected finish: December 2018

J: GATEWAY ARCH Applicant: Histon Road Residents Association Ward: Arbury Grant request: £10,000 Project budget: not sure Expected start: 2019 Expected finish: 2020

A metal archway (similar to that at Arbury Court). Located at city boundary at the north of the city coming into Histon Road. Would like to work with the Council's project team who worked on Arbury Court.

Not eligible for reasons of feasibility, originality and artistic quality. Suggest this is more appropriate for consideration by other teams/area committee. Archway over the road is not feasible due to access and safety requirements and both the structure and the involvement of an artist it is not feasible for the budget proposed.

K: COPROLITE CHORUS Applicant: HistoryWorks Ward: Romsey/Petersfield Grant request: £15,000 Project budget: £15,000 Expected start: September 2018 Expected finish: September 2019

Exploring the history of the Coprolite mines of Romsey, Petersfield and Abbey through songmaking, working with the 'Horrible Histories' writers and HistoryWorks. Lyric writing workshops, school rehearsals, and end performances.

Not eligible on the basis of originality and artistic quality and potentially feasibility in view of all other bids. Another song based project in a ward that has already seen a project in this format on an historic theme. Given the number of bids from HistoryWorks in this round and previous rounds, this project is not recommended on the basis of equitability.

L: TRADES OF ROMSEY AND PETERSFIELD

Exploring the trades of the early residents of Petersfield and

Not eligible on the basis of originality and artistic quality. Another trail based history



Applicant: HistoryWorks Ward: Romsey/Petersfield Grant request: £15,000 Project budget: £15,000 Expected start: September 2018 Expected finish: September 2019

Romsey - research mapping, guided history walks, culminating in a digital geocache trail, photographic exhibition by Martin Bond

project in a ward that has already seen a project in this format on an historic theme. Given the number of bids from HistoryWorks in this round and previous rounds, this project is not recommended on the basis of equitability.

M2: TRAVELLERS AND OUTSIDERS MAKING AND MODELLING IN A LANDSCAPE Applicant: HistoryWorks Ward: Abbey/Citywide Grant request: £15,000 Project budget: £15,000 Expected start: September 2018 Expected finish: December 2020

Making and modelling workshops outside and in cultural spaces across the city on the theme of travellers and outsiders.

It is proposed that a one year project on this theme is agreed with HistoryWorks using S106 funding (see proposal M1). It is hoped that if the project is successful it would be able to seek additional support from other funders to support second year outcomes or meet the scope of this phase of the project.

N: REFLECTION CLOUD Applicant: Ian Lambert and David Skillicorn Ward: Citywide Grant request: £15,000 Project budget: £15,000

Sculptural installation in the form of a swing, which can be moved to different parks. Moving the swing to different parks would encourage use of the city's open spaces.

Not eligible as it does not support best practice in ensuring artist’s remuneration and feasibility. The application is from individual artist rather than organisation and mentions that the artists are not taking a fee, but would use the money for



Expected start: July 2018 Expected finish: Autumn 2019

the fabrication and installation only. The Panel believe that the proposal has not taken into account some of the practical delivery elements and the budget is not feasible given public safety requirements and the costs of moveable installation combined with no artist remuneration.

P: COTON CORNER Applicant: Newnham Residents Association Ward: Newnham Grant request: £15,000 Project budget: TBC Already raised: £0 Expected start: July 2018 Expected finish: December 2019

Commissioning of an artist create a feature for the corner of the Coton footpath, intersection with Wilberforce Rd and Adams Rd. The community association are looking for a sculpture or embedded feature to improve the area.

There is clearly a community need and aspiration for improvements at this location, which should be considered by the Council; however, it is not clear how the proposals sit in relation to forthcoming redevelopment or redesign of the Highway and how the proposal strictly meets public art criteria. There is not enough information in the application to know if this is feasible and how the commissioning process would work. May be more appropriate for Environmental Improvement rather than public art. There is a seeming need to ‘make the project fit’ the art criteria, rather than be a suitable artist-led project in its own right. Taken in view of both bids from Newnham, the other project (see project T) is stronger in meeting our objectives for the funding. Officers provided advice about



ascertaining land ownership before applying and that the application should be artist led.

R: NUN’S WAY PAVILION MURAL Applicant: Sa’adiah and Samirah Khan Ward: Kings Hedges Grant request: £15,000 Project budget: £25,378 Already raised: £0 Expected start: September 2018 Expected finish: April 2019

Murals on the exterior walls of Nuns Way Pavilion (this application is from the artists who worked on the Chesterton Mural). Workshop process for engaging local people in the development of designs.

Not eligible on the basis of feasibility (concerns about budget level and lack of other funding and long term plans for the building). Not recommended on the basis of artistic quality criteria particularly on uncertainty about the engagement process how it shapes the design concept. It is a less publicly accessible site than the Chesterton project and there are questions about the longevity of the work. Advice provided by Public Art team about ensuring building permission, planning regulations and that the application should come from an organisation rather than an individual.

S: SPHERES OF INFLUENCE Applicant: Oblique Arts Ward: Trumpington, Romsey, Abbey Grant request: £14,113 Project budget: £14,113 Already raised: in kind support

The pop up ‘Spheres of Influence’ installation will comprise of growing room spheres, constructed in wood and housed with vegetables, salads and edible flowers, grown by the community and for the community, and

Not eligible on the basis of feasibility, project management, and artistic quality. Many aspects of this bid seemed unclear; proposes starting ahead of grant decisions, too much activity for the scope of the budget, plus conflicting information about number of workshops/activities.



Expected start: June 2018 Expected finish: January 2019

spheres that are transparent and will contain moving and still images of the artwork made by the community around the theme of ‘edible art’. During the autumn, these 3D transparent spheres will have videos projected into them which will show compositions of the material made by the community groups, edited and curated by artists.

The readymade IKEA growing sphere indicates this as more of a community environmental project than a high quality public art outcome, with an element of a previous project (Bright Lights of CB4) tacked on.


Appendix 2

Comments received from Councillors on public art grant

applications

Councillor Gillespie (Market ward) has contacted officers to express support

for:

Proposal C (Plastic waste art installation at the Eco-Living Festival)

Proposal I (Growing spaces short film)1

Proposal U (Faith and Hope).

Councillor Dryden (Cherry Hinton ward) has contacted officers to express

support for:

Proposal G (Crowded Room).

1. Councillor Gillespie has declared a non-pecuniary interest in knowing the Transition

Cambridge team and the artist that would be involved in the project.

Report p

Item

S106 F(COMM

Key Dec 1. EX 1.1 Th

imfutspke

a.

b.

1.2 S1

hacogeallo

To: Counci

Environ

ReportTim WeTel: 012

Wards

page no.

FUNDINMUNIT

cision

XECUTIV

he purpospact of dture S106orts and y feature

it distingallocatedspecific particula

within a there arethe appr

06 fundinave officiantribution

eneric S10ocated a

llor Anna

nment & C

t by: etherfield223 – 45

affected

1

NG: NETIES)

VE SUMM

se of S10evelopme6-funded indoor sp

es of S106

uishes bed to particcontribut

ar facilitie

broadly ce importaroach to f

ng is limital regulatins coming06 contribnd spent

a Smith, E

Commun

, Urban G7313. Em

d: All

EXT ST

MARY

6 develoent. This projects

ports in C6 funding

etween gcular projions (whis at the p

consistenant differefuture gen

ted and uions restrg in sincebutions hthrough

Executive

nity Scruti

Growth Pmail: tim.

TEPS

per contrreport sefor impro

Cambridgg:

generic cojects via ich are alplanning a

nt approaences betneric fund

unevenly ricted thee 2015, bhas been funding r

e Council

iny Comm

Project Mawetherfie

ributions ets out thoving come. This a

ontributioannual Slready ideapproval

ch to all Stween theding roun

spread ae amount but the av

running drounds in

lor for Co

mittee

anager eld@cam

Ag

is to helpe next ste

mmunity fapproach

ons (whichS106 fundentified fostage); a

S106 conem, whichnds. See

across theof new, sailability down as recent y

ommunitie

21/03/20

mbridge.go

Agenda pa

p mitigateeps to ide

facilities, recognis

h can be ding roundor improvand

ntributionh are reflTable 1.

e city. Nospecific Sof remainit has be

years.

es

019

ov.uk

age no.

e the entify outdoor es some

ds) and ving

types, ected in

ot only S106 ning en


Table 1: Key differences of approach to different S106 types

Generic contributions Specific contributions C

om

mu

nit

y fa

cilit

ies Proposes an annual funding

process to seek grant applications by the end of April, which will then be assessed (including an opportunity for local councillors to comment) and reported with funding recommendations in June. See Section 4.

Seeks to add some additional Council owned/managed facilities to the ‘target list’. Also clarifies process for considering possible alternative facilities for specific contributions in wards where there are no Council-owned or managed community facilities. See Section 6.

Ou

tdo

or

& i

nd

oo

r sp

ort

s

Not seeking proposals through funding rounds because priorities are already identified through the agreed sports strategies (themselves based on engagement with sports clubs, bodies & others). Project proposals supporting these priorities will be reported to this Committee for consideration for S106 funding as and when they are ready. See Section 5

Aim to recommend updates to indoor and outdoor sport ‘target lists’ in October 2019 to take account of the reviews of the current Playing Pitch and Indoor Sports Strategies. See Section 6.

1.3 Generic S106 funding rounds will only consider applications for

community facility improvements in those wards where there is £10,000 or more available. In the 2019 generic funding round, the focus will therefore be on proposals from the following wards: Table 2:

Abbey Coleridge East Chesterton

King’s Hedges Market Romsey

Romsey Trumpington


2. RECOMMENDATIONS The Executive Councillor is recommended to:

2.1 agree the process for annual, generic S106 funding rounds for community facilities, for as long as there is generic S106 funding available (see paragraphs 4.6 - 4.8);

2.2 agree that, where there is less than £10,000 of generic community facilities S106 funding available in a ward, this can be used to supplement spend on appropriate local projects identified for specific S106 contributions (see paragraph 4.4);

2.3 note that proposals for the use of generic, outdoor and indoor sports S106 funding will come forward to this Committee as and when they are ready, in line with strategic priorities (see paragraphs 5.1 – 5.2);

2.4 allocate generic outdoor sports S106 funding to the following grant-based projects, subject to planning permission, business case approval and community use agreements (paragraph 5.3 and Appendix E)

a. up to £65,000 outdoor sports contributions towards the improvement and upgrade of outdoor sports courts and the artificial pitch at Chesterton Community College and

b. up to £45,000 of outdoor sports contributions for floodlighting improvements and training pitch provision at Cambridge Rugby Club;

2.5 add the following community facilities to the ‘target list’ to be used as a starting point for identifying possible specific contributions: Clay Farm Centre, Storey’s Field Centre, Nightingale Avenue Pavilion, and new community facilities at the Cromwell Road development and at the former Mill Road Depot site (see paragraphs 6.5 – 6.6);

2.6 agree the updated approach for identifying specific S106 contributions for community facilities in those parts of the city where there are not Council-owned or managed community facilities nearby (see paragraph 6.7 and Appendix F); and

2.7 instruct officers to make all city councillors aware of the evidence-based

target lists for play areas and open spaces that are used as a starting point for negotiating specific S106 contributions (see paragraph 6.12).


3. BACKGROUND 3.1 An overview1 of the Council’s approach can be found at

www.cambridge.gov.uk/our-approach-to-s106.

a. Off-site S106 contributions provide a way for developers to make appropriate payments, when not mitigating the impact of their developments on-site, which can be used to provide or improve relevant local facilities and amenities.

b. Officers carefully assess project proposals and manage the funding to comply with relevant policies, regulations and legal agreements in terms of how, where and when the contributions can be used.

c. There have been significant changes to the context in which S106 funding operates in recent years. This includes regulatory and government policy changes (e.g., the move away from generic to evidence-based specific S106 contributions).

d. With the increased emphasis on justifying the need for contributions, the Council has produced facility audits and strategies (e.g., Building Stronger Communities Strategy 20172, Indoor Sports Strategy and Playing Pitch Strategy3,4) to help inform S106 decision-making.

e. Generic S106 funding for community and sports facilities is often provided as grants to local organisations to improve their facilities and make them available to the wider community5.

1. This may be particularly helpful for anyone not familiar with the working of S106

funding. The overview now includes a summary of the ‘target lists’ used as a starting point for seeking specific S106 contributions.

2. The Building Stronger Communities Strategy 2017 identified particular gaps in community provision in the following wards: Abbey, Cherry Hinton, East Chesterton (northern part) and Queen Edith’s (northern part). The footnotes on page 6 of this committee report already highlight how community facilities S106 funding has been allocated to projects in Abbey, Cherry Hinton and Queen Edith’s. There is still further scope for using generic S106 funding to mitigate needs in Abbey & East Chesterton.

3. The outdoor sports proposals recommended for funding in this report (see Appendix E) make reference to priority actions identified in these strategies.

4. In addition, there is the Swimming Pool Investment Strategy, agreed by the Executive Councillor in June 2018. Swimming pool S106 contributions are a separate category from outdoor and indoor sports contributions, which are the focus of this report.

5. These are subject to community use agreements.


3.2 The Council instituted a new approach to generic S106 funding rounds in 2012. For a number of years, some priority-setting decisions for some S106 contribution types were devolved to area committees. However, as generic S106 funding has become more limited, these decisions have returned to the relevant executive councillor. This was agreed for indoor sports in October 2014, for outdoor sports in October 2016 and for community facilities in January 2018.

4. GENERIC S106 CONTRIBUTIONS: COMMUNITY FACILITIES 4.1 The Council tends to use generic, community facilities S106

contributions from developments in a particular ward on local community facility improvements within the same ward or a nearby facility in a neighbouring ward. It has also uses some of this funding, (particularly from major housing developments) towards funding strategic projects that benefit more than one area of the city. See Appendix A for a ward-by-ward summary of S106-funded community and sports facility improvements since 2012.

4.2 Table 3 on the following page sets out the remaining (unallocated)

S106 funding availability for community facilities. The uneven spread across the city reflects both variations in the amount of development (and levels of S106 funding received) in each ward and how much of this has already been allocated or spent on local or strategic projects.

4.3 The funding availability analysis is a work in progress. Further work will

be undertaken, prior to the committee meeting, to review the allocation of contributions to projects6 in order, where possible, to explore scope for maximising the availability of S106 funding in wards where it is particularly low. Even so, this is unlikely to increase substantially the amounts that are available in those wards that currently have less than £5,000 available for particular contribution types.

4.4 In wards with less than £10,000 of generic community facilities S106

funding remaining, it is unlikely that these could fund new, stand-alone projects. Where there are no other options for using this money on relevant generic, S106-funded community facility projects,

6. In line with the S106 regulations and stipulations set out in S106 agreements.


Table 3: Community facilities S106 availability

Availability Wards

None Castle, Cherry Hinton7, Newnham, Petersfield, West Chesterton

Less than £5,000 Arbury, Queen Edith’s8

£5,000 - £15,000 -

£15,000 - £30,000 King’s Hedges, Market

£30,000 - £45,000 -

£45,000 - £60,000 Abbey9, East Chesterton

£60,000 - £75,000 Romsey, Trumpington

£75,000 - £100,000 -

£100,000-£125,000 Coleridge

recommendation 2.2 seeks the flexibility to be able to use such residual amounts to supplement nearby community facility improvement projects for which specific S106 contributions are being collected10.

4.5 Generic S106 funding rounds have helped to make sure that S106

contributions can be used properly before any expiry dates (mostly, within ten years of payment)11. Appendix B identifies unallocated, generic S106 contributions that are within five years of time limits. The earliest of these is April 2023, so there is still plenty of time to make sure that these are spent in a timely manner.

7. All available generic community facilities S106 contributions from Cherry Hinton (plus

other nearby developments) along with specific contributions, are allocated to phase 2 of the Cherry Hinton Hub project.

8. During the 2018 funding round, over £250,000 of generic S106 funds from Queen Edith’s were allocated to community facility improvements in that ward (including a £100,000 grant to St John’s Church and increasing the amount of community facilities S106 funding going into the new pavilion at Nightingale Avenue Rec Ground.

9. £255,000 of generic S106 funds from Abbey ward are currently allocated for a grant to the County Council for improving East Barnwell Community Centre.

10. Whilst specific contributions cannot be used for generic purposes, generic contributions can be used to supplement specific contributions

11. Where S106 expiry dates are not stipulated, the Council still looks to make sure they are used on appropriate projects within 10 years.


Future generic S106 funding rounds for community facilities

4.6 Where wards have more than £10,000 of generic community facilities S106 funds available, it is hoped that it will be possible to allocate most of this to suitable projects during the 2019 round. However, in case there need to be further funding rounds in future, recommendation 2.1 seeks approval for an annual process that can be repeated in those parts of the city where sufficient S106 funding remains, without having to come back to committee to agree the arrangements first.

4.7 Some of the key features for future generic S106 funding rounds for

community facilities will be as follows.

a. They will only seek proposals from the wards where there is funding available locally12.

b. Applications for proposed improvements will be invited from March13 until the end of April. Proposals will then be assessed in May against the S106 selection criteria. These assessments will then be reported to this Committee in June, with recommendations for S106 funding. See the flow chart of the process in Appendix C.

c. The S106 selection criteria for community and sports facilities, which can be found in Appendix D, are much the same as those used for community facilities in the 2018 round, with minor changes to make them applicable to both community and sports facilities.

4.8 Councillor engagement has been a key feature of the S106 funding and

decision-making processes in recent years – and this will continue. As last year, where S106 funding is available in a ward, the ward councillors will be:

a. invited to put forward eligible proposals for its use; b. asked to encourage local groups also to put forward eligible

proposals; and c. given the opportunity to comment on any of the proposals received

in their area of the city, as part of the assessment process. 12. Whilst contributions from a ward do not necessarily have to be used in the same ward

(as an improvement project in one can help to mitigate the impact of a nearby development in another), the current availability of generic S106 funding for community facilities does not leave much room for manoeuvre.

13. In the case of the 2019 round, this will be launched in late March 2019, following consideration of this report at this Committee meeting.


5. GENERIC S106 CONTRIBUTIONS: OUTDOOR & INDOOR SPORTS 5.1 The approach to identifying outdoor and indoor sports projects for S106

funding differs from the process for other S106 contribution types (see the process flow chart in Appendix C). The Council will not be seeking further proposals for sports facility improvements through the generic S106 funding rounds. This is because funding priorities have already been identified in the Playing Pitch and Indoor Sports strategies (both approved by the Executive Councillor and by relevant sports national governing bodies and Sport England). The action plans were all compiled as a result of engagement with a large range of public and private providers and community organisations, resident associations and affiliated clubs.

5.2 Whilst officers first look for possibilities to allocate outdoor and indoor

sports contributions to relevant projects in the same area, they can be used on sports facilities across Cambridge that have a city-wide benefit. Table 4 sets out current S106 funding availability. Although there is no funding remaining from West/Central Area, projects in that area which have a city-wide benefit can still be funded.

Table 4: Indoor & outdoor sports S106 availability14

From: Outdoor sports Indoor sports

North Area £60,000-£75,000 £275,000-£300,000

East Area £100,000-£125,000 £150,000-£175,000

South Area £125,000-£150,000 £175,000-£200,000

West/Central Area £0 £60,00-75,000

5.3 There are currently two outdoor sports proposals (from Chesterton

Community College and Cambridge Rugby Club) being recommended for S106 funding now in order to be able to move forward this year during the holiday / close season period. See Appendix E for more details. Officers are satisfied that these meet the S106 selection criteria.

14. Similar to the comments in paragraph 4.4 in relation 2.3, please note that the analysis

in Table 4 is a work in progress and that further checks will be made prior to the committee meeting itself.


6. SPECIFIC S106 FUNDING 6.1 Since changes to the official regulations, which came into effect in April

2015, councils have been required to seek specific S106 contributions (as opposed to generic ones) for which there is a demonstrable need and which are directly related to mitigating the impact of developments in the vicinity. Under the current regulations, no more than five specific contributions can be agreed for any single project.

6.2 The need for specific S106 contributions to be agreed (normally by the

Planning Committee) at the same time that major planning applications are determined requires officers to work to very tight timescales to identify off-site projects that would mitigate the impact of particular developments. As this leaves little or no scope for local consultation on each case with councilors of others, a scrutiny committee report in June 2016 set out evidence-based ‘target lists’15 of community facilities and outdoor and indoor sports facilities where mitigations would be needed, as a starting point for negotiating relevant specific contributions. Following committee scrutiny, these ‘target lists’ were agreed by the Executive Councillor16.

6.3 Please note that putting a particular facility on a ‘target list’ does not

necessarily mean that specific contributions will necessarily besecured for it. That will depend, in part, on the nature & location of major developments that arise. Officers may also identify other projects to mitigate the impact of proposed developments where this would be more appropriate and relevant in particular cases.

6.4 Officers aim to report a review of the ‘target lists’ for outdoor and indoor

sports to this Committee in October 2019 following a refresh of the Playing Pitch and Indoor Sports Strategies.

15. The ‘target lists’ are summarised in the S106 overview briefing note, mentioned under

paragraph 3.1, which can be found at www.cambridge.gov.uk/our-approach-to-s106.

16. This report to the Community Services Scrutiny Committee in June 2016, which includes the ‘target lists’, continues to be available on the Council’s website at www.cambridge.gov.uk/changes-to-s106-funding.


6.5 The community facilities ‘target list’ in 2016 was based on Council-owned or managed facilities. This reflected concerns17 (mentioned in the June 2016 report) about whether community or voluntary groups running community facilities could withstand the uncertainties of how much specific S106 funding might become available and when18.

6.6 Since the June 2016 report in June 2016, the Council has produced its

Building Stronger Communities Strategy 2017. Accordingly, recommendation 2.5 seeks to add to the list a number of council-owned or managed community facilities not included on the 2016 ‘target list’, not least to provide additional facilities or equipment. These include:

a. new facilities which have been completed since 2016 (e.g., Clay Farm Centre and Storey’s Field); and

b. plans for community facilities which have been developed in more detail since 2016 (e.g., Nightingale Avenue Pavilion and as part of developments on Cromwell Road and on the Mill Road Depot site).

6.7 Whilst this will help to provide more options for specific contributions for

community facilities, it still leaves the question of how to approach cases where a major development is proposed in a ward of the city which does not have council-owned or managed community facilities nearby. To address this, officers have developed a flow-chart (see Appendix F), to help consider their options. Whilst this highlights that options are limited and that it may not be possible to identify specific contributions (or another positive conclusion) in some cases, it does set out a systematic way forward.

Specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015

6.8 A summary of the specific S106 contributions agreed since the regulation changes in April 2015 can be found in the ward-by-ward profiles in Appendix A. Table 5 also provides a tally of the number of

17. These concerns are more pronounced for community facilities than they are for

outdoor & indoor sports facilities, which tend to be managed more by organisations (including schools) with permanent, paid staff and long-term budget planning.

18. The June 2016 report also highlighted that, if specific contributions were secured for an external community facilities but the project was later unable to proceed, there was a risk that these would need to be returned to the developers. Indeed this risk cannot be ruled out from amongst the specific S106 contributions for community facilities secured so far.


specific contributions secured since 2015 across the three contribution types within the portfolio. It makes a distinction between those that have been agreed but not yet become payable and those where contributions have been received. These relate to 15 community facilities, 18 outdoor sports facilities and 12 indoor sports facilities: in most cases, one or two contributions have been secured for a facility, although there are several cases where four or five contributions have been agreed.

Table 5: Summary of specific contributions secured since 2015

Amount range

Status Community facilities

Outdoor sports

Indoor sports

Under £15,000

Agreed 2 12 10

Received 2 2 2

£15,000-£50,000

Agreed 8 2 5

Received 5 3 0

£50,000-£100,000

Agreed 3 5 1

Received 1 2 2

Over £100,000

Agreed 2 1 2

Received 0 1 0

TOTALS 23 28 22

6.9 Once sufficient funds for projects are received from specific S106

contributions, they can then be taken forward19. However, most specific S106 contributions agreed so far have not yet met their triggers for payment. It may take up to three years after planning approval for construction to start. If the S106 triggers for payment in an agreement are later than the start of development, it may take even longer for the specific contributions to become payable. Please note also that:

a. if a development does not proceed within the three-year life span of a planning approval (for development to commence), the specific contribution would normally cease to be payable20 and

19. For example, as in the case of the pavilion at Chesterton Recreation Ground.

20. Under the current regulations, however, it could still count towards the ‘no more than five specific contributions’ for a single project.


b. if a specific contribution, which is received, cannot then be used for its specified purpose or within any time limits stipulated, the expectation is that it would need to be returned to the developer.

6.10 The target lists had been originally intended as an interim measure for

helping to secure specific S106 contributions before the Council could introduce a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The assumption in 2016 was that this might be possible in 2018, but it took longer to adopt the Local Plan than originally expected. Indeed, the Council withdrew its original draft CIL scheme in autumn 2017, with the intention of considering a joint CIL with South Cambridgeshire District Council. This also provides the opportunity to take stock of the appropriate way forward in the light of expected changes to government guidance (which is still awaited).

6.11 Having adopted the new Local Plan in September 2018, the Greater

Cambridge Planning Service is gearing up to prepare the next Local Plan, including reviews of the Planning Obligations Strategy and the Joint Infrastructure Plan and its future approach to S106 agreements and CIL. In the meantime, the Council may need to continue its S106 interim approach (with ‘target lists’) for some while longer.

6.12 Officers are mindful that, even though the ‘target list’ information has

been, and continues to be, available via the Council’s Developer contributions web pages, not all Members may be sighted on the Council’s approach. It is, therefore, proposed that officers write to all ward councilors to make them aware, including the ward-by-ward information featured in the appendices.

7. IMPLICATIONS

7.1 Financial implications: The use of most S106 funding for community and sports facilities tends to be as grants to other local groups in order to make their facilities accessible to the wider community. The grant recipients agree to take on the responsibility for running costs and maintenance so these do not present a financial implication for the Council. However, if the Council was to seek S106 funding to upgrade its own community and sports facilities, this could have financial implications for revenue budgets. In such cases, checks are made


within the business case approval process (before S106-allocated projects can go ahead) to ensure that the necessary budgetary provision is in place.

7.2 Staffing implications: The S106 funding round process will be resourced from within existing staffing resources. The timing of future funding rounds between March to June helps to make sure that this does not clash with staff preparations for community volunteering events in the autumn.

7.3 Equality and poverty implications: The primary purpose of S106 funding is to mitigate the impact of development (not addressing pre-existing needs). The equality implications for particular S106-funded proposals are considered at the business case stage, before projects are implemented.

7.4 Other implications: Climate change, community safety and other considerations are also addressed at the business case stage.

8. CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION CONSIDERATIONS 8.1 Seeking proposals for the use of S106 funding is a ‘business as usual’

activity, rather than public consultation. It is, therefore, appropriate for it to go ahead during the run-up to the City Council elections in early May.

8.2 The funding round process will encourage proposals and comments from city councilors in wards where S106 funding is available locally. The process will also be publicised via the Council’s website, social media and news releases. Given the reducing levels of generic S106 funding availability, care will be taken to manage public expectations.

9. BACKGROUND PAPERS 9.1 Background papers used in the preparation of this report:

a. ‘S106 report (Communities)’ on 2018 funding process, Community

Services Scrutiny Committee, January 2018.

b. ‘S106 report (Communities)’ 2018 on S106 funding round recommendations, Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee, June 2018.


c. ‘Interim approach to S106 funding’ report, Community Services Scrutiny Committee, June 2016.

d. ‘Building Strong Communities Strategy’, reported to Community Services Scrutiny Committee in January 2017.

e. ‘Indoor Sports Strategy’, reported to Development Plan Scrutiny Sub-Committee, June 2016.

f. ‘Playing Pitch Strategy’, reported to Development Plan Scrutiny Sub-Committee, June 2016.

g. Further information about the Council’s approach to managing S106 contributions can be found at www.cambridge.gov.uk/s106.

10. APPENDICES

A. Overview of generic S106-funded projects since 2012 and specific S106 contributions secured since 2015.

B. Unallocated community facilities and outdoor & indoor sports S106 contributions with expiry dates before June 2024.

C. Flow chart of future generic S06 funding processes for community facilities and sports facilities.

D. Proposed S106 eligibility criteria for community and sports facilities for future generic S106 funding rounds.

E. Projects recommended for generic S106 outdoor sports funding in March 2019.

F. Flow chart on assessing whether to recommend a specific S106 contribution for community facilities when there is no nearby facility on the target list.

11. INSPECTION OF PAPERS

To inspect the background papers or if you have a query on the report please contact Tim Wetherfield, Urban Growth Project manager, tel: 01223 - 457313, email: [email protected].


Generic S106-funded projects since 2012 & specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015

Appendix A

S106 funding figures are rounded down to nearest £000. For projects not yet completed, these represent budget allocations – actual costs may vary.

ABBEY WARD (East Area) Community facilities improvements

Funded by generic S106 contributions Status £ S106

Barnwell Baptist Church (kitchen) Completed (2013) £3,500

Cambridge Museum of Technology Under way £31,000

East Barnwell Community Centre Planning stage £255,000

Stanesfield Road scout hut Completed (2014) £100,000 Specific contributions agreed for improving community facilities and equipment at: Abbey Church and East Barnwell Community Centre. Outdoor sports improvements


Abbey Outdoor fitness equipment Completed (2018) £40,000

Ditton Fields outdoor fitness Completed (2014) £28,000

Abbey Sports Centre floodlights for existing artificial pitch (alongside specific S106)

Completed (2018) £30,000

Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: Abbey Sports Centre (floodlighting for existing artificial pitch) Abbey Sports Centre (training pitch improvements) Barnwell Road or Dudley Road (additional tennis court) Coldham’s Common (baseball pitch and backstop) Coldham’s Common (upgraded artificial grass pitch). Indoor sports improvements

No indoor sports projects in this ward have been funded from generic S106 contributions since 2012, but there have been projects in other parts of East Area and elsewhere in Cambridge from which this ward has benefitted.

Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at Abbey Sports Centre ([i] to increase studio space and [ii] to improve the gym).


Generic S106-funded projects since 2012 & specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 ARBURY WARD (North Area) Community facilities improvements21

Funded by S106 generic contributions Status £ S106

82 Akeman Street Completed (2013) £5,000

St Luke's – hall Completed (2016) £30,000 Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: Akeman Street community house. The community facilities ‘target list’ (as a starting point for negotiation) also highlights possibilities at: The Meadows Centre Kingsway community room. Outdoor sports improvements

No generic outdoor sports projects in this ward have been funded from generic S106 contributions since 2012, but there have been S106-funded projects in other parts of North Area from which this ward has benefitted. No specific contributions for outdoor sports facilities in this ward have yet been agreed, but the outdoor sports ‘target list’ does highlight the need for: St Alban’s Recreation Ground (junior pitch improvements). Indoor sports improvements

No indoor sports projects in this ward have been funded from generic S106 contributions since 2012 but there have been S106-funded sports facility projects in other parts of North Area from which this ward has benefitted. No specific contributions for indoor sports facilities in this ward have been agreed, nor are there any included on the indoor sports ‘target list’. Where major developments come forward in this ward, officers will recommend (as appropriate) that specific contributions are assigned to sports facilities elsewhere in the city which would help to mitigate their impact.

21. Improvements to Arbury Community Centre are listed under King’s Hedges.


Generic S106-funded projects since 2012 & specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 CASTLE WARD (West/Central Area) Community facilities improvements Funded by generic S106 contributions Status £ S106

Darwin Green Centre: equipment/furnishings

Planning stage £25,000

St Augustine's Church - phase 1 Competed (2014) £100,000

St Augustine's Church - phase 2 Completed (2017) £87,000 Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: Storey’s Field Centre. Outdoor sports improvements Funded by generic S106 contributions Status £ S106

Histon Road Rec Ground: football area Completed (2018) £32,000 No specific contributions for outdoor sports facilities in this ward have been agreed, nor are there any included on the outdoor sports ‘target list’. Where major developments come forward in this ward, officers will recommend (as appropriate) that specific contributions are assigned to sports facilities elsewhere in the city which would help to mitigate their impact. Indoor sports improvements No indoor sports projects in this ward have been funded from generic S106 contributions since 2012, but there have been projects elsewhere in Cambridge from which this ward has benefitted. No specific contributions for indoor sports facilities in this ward have been agreed, nor are there any included on the indoor sports ‘target list’. Where major developments come forward in this ward, officers will recommend (as appropriate) that specific contributions are assigned to sports facilities elsewhere in the city which would help to mitigate their impact.


Generic S106-funded projects since 2012 & specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 CHERRY HINTON WARD (South Area) Community facilities improvements Funded by generic S106 contributions Status £ S106

Cherry Hinton community hub (stage 1) Completed (2014) £10,000

Cherry Hinton Baptist Church family centre

Completed (2015) £121,000

Cherry Hinton community hub (stage 2) (alongside specific contributions)


Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: Cherry Hinton community hub (£37,000). Outdoor sports improvements Funded by generic S106 contributions Status £ S106

Cherry Hinton Rec Ground: panna football goal

Completed (2014) £7,000

Cherry Hinton Rec Ground Pavilion Completed (2017) £300,000 Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: Cherry Hinton Recreation Ground (pitch improvements & training

facilities). Indoor sports improvements No indoor sports projects in this ward have been funded from generic S106 contributions since 2012, but there have been projects elsewhere in South Area from which this ward has benefitted. Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: Cherry Hinton Village Centre.


Generic S106-funded projects since 2012 & specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 COLERIDGE (East Area) Community facilities improvements


Flamsteed Road scout hut Completed (2014) £120,000

Greek Orthodox Church: hall Completed (2018) £150,000

St Martin's community centre: phase 1 Completed (2012) £120,000

St Martin's community centre: phase 1b Completed (2013) £115,000 Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at Lichfield Hall and The Junction. Outdoor sports improvements


Coleridge Rec Ground Pavilion To be reviewed22 £70,000

Coleridge Rec Ground tennis courts and multi-use games area

Completed (2015) £156,00023

Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: Coleridge Rec Ground (outdoor sports pitches/additional changing rooms). Indoor sports improvements

No indoor sports projects in this ward have been funded from generic S106 contributions since 2012, but there have been projects elsewhere in Cambridge from which this ward has benefitted.

No specific contributions for indoor sports facilities in this ward have been agreed, nor are there any included on the indoor sports ‘target list’. Where major developments come forward in this ward, officers will recommend (as appropriate) that specific contributions are assigned to sports facilities elsewhere in the city which would help to mitigate their impact. 22. Since this allocation was agreed in April 2017, officers have advised that there might

be other ways of addressing these needs at Coleridge Rec as part of an overall review of the use of space. Officers will develop these proposals further, in consultation with ward councillors, and will report back to this Committee with revised proposals.

23. This was part of a wider recreation ground improvement, which also saw £167,000 of play area and open space improvements.


Generic S106-funded projects since 2012 & specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 EAST CHESTERTON WARD (North Area) Community facilities improvements Funded by generic S106 contributions Status £ S106

St Andrew's Hall extension Completed (2015) £140,000 Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: Brown’s Field Youth & Community Centre. Outdoor sports improvements Funded by generic S106 contributions Status £ S106

Camrowers/CRA community boathouse Completed (2017) £250,000

Pye's Pitch: sports pitches and access Completed (2014) £37,000 Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: Chesterton Rec Ground (new club room / changing facilities / pitch

improvements) Chesterton Rec Ground (‘fit kit’ and meeting point) Indoor sports improvements No indoor sports projects in this ward have been funded from generic S106 contributions since 2012. No specific contributions for indoor sports facilities in this ward have been agreed, nor are there any included on the indoor sports ‘target list’. Where major developments come forward in this ward, officers will recommend (as appropriate) that specific contributions are assigned to sports facilities elsewhere in the city which would help to mitigate their impact.


Generic S106-funded projects since 2012 & specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 KING’S HEDGES WARD (North Area) Community facilities improvements Funded by generic S106 contributions Status £ S106

Arbury Community Centre: large hall Under way £50,000

Arbury Community Centre: small hall Completed (2014) £80,000

Buchan Street Neighbourhood Centre Completed (2015) £100,000 No specific contributions for community facilities in this ward have yet been agreed, but the community facilities ‘target list’ does highlight the need for improving facilities and equipment at: Buchan Street Neighbourhood Centre Arbury Community Centre 37 Lawrence Way community house Nun’s Way Pavilion. Outdoor sports improvements Funded by generic S106 contributions Status £ S106

North Cambridge Academy: tennis courts Completed (2018) £125,000 Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: North Cambridge Academy (artificial cricket nets and wicket).

The ‘target list’ for negotiating specific contributions also includes outdoor storage for sports equipment at North Cambridge Academy. Indoor sports improvements Funded by generic S106 contributions Status £ S106

Cambridge Gymnastics Academy: warehouse conversion

Completed (2016) £65,000

Cambridge Gymnastics Academy: trampoline pit

Completed (2016) £75,000

Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: North Cambridge Academy (new sports hall floor and indoor court).


Generic S106-funded projects since 2012 & specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 MARKET WARD (West/Central Area) Community facilities improvements


Centre 3324 Completed (2013) £12,000

Great St Mary's Church: meeting space Completed (2014) £50,000

Jesus Green Pavilion: meeting space Planning stage £125,000

St Clement's Church: meeting space Under way £30,000 No specific contributions for community facilities in this ward have been agreed, nor are there any community facilities within the ward included on the ‘target list’. If proposals for major developments arise in this ward (as appropriate), officers will use the proposed approach to assessing the possibility of recommending specific contributions to other nearby facilities. Outdoor sports improvements


Christ's Pieces tennis courts Completed (2017) £65,000

Hobbs Pavilion Completed (2014) £212,000

Jesus Green tennis courts Completed (2013) £112,000 No specific contributions agreed have yet been agreed, but the ‘target list’ (as a starting point for negotiating relevant ones) does highlight the need for: second cricket square on Parker’s Piece for community club cricket use. Indoor sports improvements

No indoor sports projects in this ward have been funded from generic S106 contributions since 2012.

No specific contributions for indoor sports facilities in this ward have been agreed, nor are there any included on the indoor sports ‘target list’. Where major developments come forward in this ward, officers will recommend (as appropriate) that specific contributions are assigned to sports facilities elsewhere in the city which would help to mitigate their impact.

24. This meeting space was grant-funded to enable Centre 33 to provide free, confidential

help for people aged under 26.


Generic S106-funded projects since 2012 & specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 NEWNHAM WARD (West/Central Area) Community facilities improvements Funded by generic S106 contributions Status £ S106

St Marks Church: hall Completed (2015) £150,000 No specific contributions for community facilities in this ward have been agreed, nor are there any community facilities within the ward included on the ‘target list’. If proposals for major developments arise in this ward (as appropriate), officers will use the proposed approach to assessing the possibility of recommending specific contributions to other nearby facilities. Outdoor sports improvements Funded by generic S106 contributions Status £ S106

Cambridge Canoe Club storage Completed (2016) £13,000

Cambridge Hockey Club: additional pitch Completed (2019) £250,000

Cambridge Rugby Club changing facilities Completed (2018) £200,000

Lammas Land tennis courts Completed (2017) £39,000

Sheep’s Green Canoe Clubhouse Completed (2012) £115,000 Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: Wilberforce Road (artificial training pitches). Indoor sports improvements No indoor sports projects in this ward have been funded from generic S106 contributions since 2012. No specific contributions for indoor sports facilities in this ward have been agreed, nor are there any included on the indoor sports ‘target list’. Where major developments come forward in this ward, officers will recommend (as appropriate) that specific contributions are assigned to sports facilities elsewhere in the city which would help to mitigate their impact.



PETERSFIELD WARD (East Area) Community facilities improvements


Cherry Trees Centre Completed (2013) £80,000

King's Church community centre Completed (2012) £100,000

Mill Road Depot community meeting space Planning stage £74,000 Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: Mill Road development site.

The community facilities ‘target list’ (as a starting point for negotiating specific contributions) also highlights possibilities at: Bath House community room. Outdoor sports improvements

No outdoor sports projects in this ward have been funded from generic S106 contributions since 2012.

Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: Donkey Common (outdoor fitness kit) St Matthew’s Piece (outdoor fitness kit). Indoor sports improvements


Kelsey Kerridge Sports Centre: inclusive fitness equipment

Completed (2013) £2,000

Kelsey Kerridge Sports Centre changing facilities & health suite

Completed (2016) £40,000

Parkside Pool: new timing equipment Completed (2013) £7,000

Parkside Pool: starting blocks Completed (2015) £18,000 Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: Kelsey Kerridge Sports Centre (function/aerobics space) Kelsey Kerridge Sports Centre (Fenners Gallery conversion) Kelsey Kerridge sports Centre (climbing and bouldering facilities) Parkside Pool (additional gym and exercise facilities).

The ‘target list’ for negotiating specific contributions also includes: Kelsey Kerridge: new mobile seating for spectators at sporting events.



QUEEN EDITH’S WARD (South Area)

Community facilities improvements


Netherhall School: dining hall Planning stage £24,000

Nightingale Rec community garden hut Planning stage £15,000

Nightingale Rec Ground Pavilion Planning stage £150,000

Rock Road Library community room Completed (2014) £20,000

Rock Road library community room Completed (2017) £16,000

St John's Church community centre Under way £100,000

No specific contributions for community facilities in this ward have been agreed, nor are there any within the ward included on the ‘target list’. If proposals for major developments arise in this ward, (as appropriate) officers will use the proposed approach to assessing the possibility of recommending specific contributions to other nearby facilities. Outdoor sports improvements


Netherhall School: Astroturf Pitch Completed (2012) £200,000

Netherhall School: cricket nets Completed (2015) £25,000

Nightingale Ave Rec Ground Pavilion Planning Stage £275,000

Nightingale Ave Rec Ground: trim trail Completed (2013) £23,00025

No specific contributions agreed have yet been agreed, but the ‘target list’ does highlight the need for a floodlit training grass area. Indoor sports improvements


Netherhall School: 'Blue Gym' Completed (2016) £38,000

Netherhall School gym and studio (incl. inclusive fitness equipment)

On-going £219,000

Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: Netherhall School (new floor for sports hall)

25. Fit kit elements of the trim trail were funded from this outdoor sports S106 funding.

There was also another £7,000 of informal open space S106 spend.


Generic S106-funded projects since 2012 & specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 ROMSEY WARD (East Area) Community facilities improvements Funded by generic S106 contributions Status £ S106

Cambridge Christian Centre (C3) Completed (2015) £53,000

Romsey Mill – meeting space Planning stage £21,000

Ross Street Community Centre Completed (2015) £70,000

St Philip's Church community centre Completed (2012) £122,000 No specific contributions for community facilities in this ward have yet been agreed, but the community facilities ‘target list’ does highlight the need for improving facilities and equipment at: Ross Street Community Centre. Outdoor sports improvements No outdoor sports projects in this ward have been funded from generic S106 contributions since 2012. No specific contributions agreed have yet been agreed, but the outdoor sports ‘target list’ (as a starting point for negotiation) does highlight the need for improvements to junior pitches at Romsey Recreation Ground. Indoor sports improvements No indoor sports projects in this ward have yet been funded from generic S106 contributions. No specific contributions for indoor sports facilities in this ward have been agreed, nor are there any included on the indoor sports ‘target list’. Where major developments come forward in this ward, officers will recommend (as appropriate) that specific contributions are assigned to sports facilities elsewhere in the city which would help to mitigate their impact.


Generic S106-funded projects since 2012 & specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 TRUMPINGTON WARD (South Area) Community facilities improvements


Empty Common community garden hut Planning stage £15,000

Hanover Court community room Completed (2014) £99,000

King George V Rec Ground Pavilion Completed (2013) £582,000

Lutheran Church community facilities Completed (2017) £45,000

St Paul's community centre Completed (2012) £50,000

St Paul's Church: main hall Completed (2012) £14,00

St Paul's community centre Completed (2013) £50,000 Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: CB1 site (community development worker) Clay Farm Centre. The community facilities ‘target list’ (as a starting point for negotiation) also highlights possibilities at: Hanover Court community room Trumpington Rec Pavilion. Outdoor sports improvements


Trumpington Bowls Pavilion Completed (2015) £55,000 Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: Trumpington Rec Ground pitch and changing facility improvements. Indoor sports improvements


Trumpington Bowls Pavilion Completed (2015) £15,000 Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: Trumpington Sports Centre (inclusive fitness kit).


Generic S106-funded projects since 2012 & specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 WEST CHESTERTON WARD (North Area) Community facilities improvements


Milton Road Library community rooms Under way £100,000

Rowan Centre, Humberstone Road Completed (2017) £71,000 Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: Former Cambridge City FC site (funding for community-based projects). Beyond that, no specific contributions for community facilities in this ward have been agreed, nor are there any included on the ‘target list’. If proposals for major developments arise in this ward, (as appropriate) officers will use the proposed approach to assessing the possibility of recommending specific contributions to other nearby facilities. Outdoor sports improvements


Cambridge 99 Rowing Club: kitchen Completed (2017) ? Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: Chesterton Community College (artificial cricket nets and wicket) Chesterton Community College (pitch improvements). The ‘target list’ for negotiating specific contributions also includes outdoor storage for sports equipment at Chesterton Community College. Indoor sports improvements

No indoor sports projects in this ward have been funded from generic S106 contributions since 2012.

Specific contributions agreed for improving facilities and equipment at: Chesterton Community College.

CITY-WIDE FACILITY: Outdoor sports improvements

Specific contributions also agreed for an artificial turf pitch within the city.


Appendix B

Unallocated GENERIC S106 contributions with expiry dates before June 2024 Amounts rounded to nearest £000.

Expires Contribution type Amount Ward

April 2023 Community facilities £3,000 Market

April 2023 Indoor sports £2,500 Market

October 2023 Community facilities £10,000 Market

October 2023 Indoor sports £4,000 Market

February 2024 Indoor sports £3,500 Abbey

February 2024 Outdoor sports £1,500 Abbey

March 2024 Indoor sports £2,500 Castle

May 2024 Indoor sports £11,500 King’s Hedges

April 2024 Indoor sports £10,000 Arbury

June 2024 Indoor sports £1,500 Petersfield

June 2024 Outdoor sports £1,500 Petersfield Allocated S106 contributions that need to be used within five years

B1. Alongside these unallocated generic S106 contributions, officers continue to monitor closely those S106 contributions (which need to be used within the next five years) that are allocated to projects currently under development, including those requiring planning approval. For example, Nightingale Avenue Rec Pavilion, Jesus Green Pavilion and East Barnwell Community Centre.

B2. If any of these projects were unable to proceed, officers would first look to reassign time-limited contributions to alternative, suitable projects (already prioritised by the Executive Councillor or Area Committee, as appropriate) that could use the S106 funding in a timely way in place of other less-time limited allocated S106 contributions.

B3. If any such contributions cannot be reassigned appropriately in this way, officers would report back to the Scrutiny Committee to seek approval for alternative project spend that would enable the contributions to be spent on time.


Appendix C

Future generic S106 funding processes for community and sports facilities

COMMUNITY FACILITIES OUTDOOR AND

INDOOR SPORTS

Annual funding round as long as S106 funds are available

As/when projects are ready to deliver for strategic priorities

Proposals invited from wards where generic S106 funding is

available. (March)

Seeking updates from sports groups as part of the refresh of

existing sports strategies (Spring 2019 only)

Deadline for seeking grant applications & proposals

(by end April)

Officers will approach local facilities to apply for sports

S106 funding that would meet strategic priorities

Applications assessed against selection criteria (May)

Proposals checked to ensure they meet selection criteria

Councillors invited to comment on relevant proposals

(mid-to-late May)

Proposals & funding recommendations reported to

Scrutiny Committee (as/when ready)

Proposals, assessment and funding recommendations reported to E&C Scrutiny

Committee in June


Appendix D Generic S106 selection criteria for community and sports facilities projects 1. Be ELIGIBLE for S106 funding

a. Proposals need to be for providing, improving or giving better access to a community facility within the city boundary, primarily for the benefit of city residents.

b. The funding cannot be used for general repairs, maintenance or running costs.

2. Be AFFORDABLE within the S106 funding available for the area of

the city where the community facility is located

a. The availability of S106 funding is diminishing and is spread unevenly across the city. If S106 contributions are not available in the ward in which the proposed project is located and the project would not benefit nearby developments in neighbouring wards (where funding may be available), it is unlikely to be worthwhile applying.

b. The Council may not wish to invest all the available relevant, generic S106 contributions available in a particular part of the city into a single project. It may be worth providing options for improvements with differing levels of funding.

c. Grant applicants must give assurances that the S106 funding requested is needed and that it does not already have sufficient funds for the project.

d. Organisations seeking S106 grants are encouraged to undertake other fund-raising and not just be reliant on the S106 grant (see www.cambridge.gov.uk/our-approach-to-s106).

3. Be an EFFECTIVE USE OF RESOURCE in line with the Council’s

strategic objectives

Priority will be given to proposals that can provide evidence that the project would help to mitigate the impact of development in Cambridge and relate to priorities set out in Council strategies (e.g., Building Stronger Communities Strategy, Playing Pitch Strategy, Indoor Sports Strategy).

4. Provide ADDITIONAL BENEFIT

a. S106 funding has to be used for providing more or better facilities or equipment that will help to meet increasing demands. It cannot be used for making like-for-like replacements.


b. S106 grants are not available for buying land and property, but could be made available to refurbish/improve facilities once sites have been acquired by other means.

5. Be ACCESSIBLE, in line with the Council’s equality policy

a. Successful applicants must sign a grant agreement, which is legally binding for 11-12 years (occasionally reduced for very small grants).

b. This includes an undertaking that the facilities will be available for wide community use for an agreed number of hours a week, with no discrimination against any protected characteristic (age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, region and belief, sex, sexual orientation).

c. Organisations may set reasonable charges for the hire/use of the S106-funded facilities by community groups, but S106 funding cannot be used for overtly profit-making purposes.

6. Be REALISTIC, ACHIEVABLE and READY to be considered

a. Proposals need to be clear about what the funding is for, where in Cambridge it would be located and how the improvement project would be implemented.

b. Applicants need to give details of preparations in place to secure planning permission (where necessary) and to consult the local community about the proposed project.

c. Applicants need to provide evidence about their fund-raising efforts and their expected timescales for securing all the funding needed for the project to go ahead.

d. Priority will be given to project proposals which could reasonably be expected to be completed within 18 months of a grant award decision.

e. Applicants will need to provide proof of ownership of the community facility and a credit check will be carried out to ensure that the organisation is financially sustainable.

7. Be FINANCIALLY VIABLE, with ROBUST MANAGEMENT PLANS

a. Applicants need to demonstrate sufficient resources are in place to ensure the effective management and running of the facility in the future.

b. Grant agreements include pay back clauses if the project does not provide the expected public benefit for the time period agreed.

c. S106 funding is for capital projects and equipment, not for revenue costs.


Appendix E

Projects recommended for generic S106 outdoor sports funding in March 2019 CHESTERTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE

1. What is proposed?

The College has requested the availability of S106 funding to make improvements to their courts on the main college site.

a. The College has a 60m x 40m flood lit 3G artificial pitch – (filled with rubber crumbs) that is coming to the end of its current lifetime - and propose to upgrade and refurbish the pitch.

b. It also has a range of outdoor tennis and netball courts that are coming to the end of their use with the playing surface deteriorating and will become unsafe for games in the near future. The College is looking to refurbish and upgrade the playing surface on the courts and has requested the availability of outdoor sports S106 funds to replace the playing surface with a specialist playing surface for tennis and netball within the court areas, providing 4 tennis courts overlaid with 2 netball courts.

2. Why is it needed?

Chesterton Sports Centre plays a strategic role in providing outdoor pitches and courts, and floodlit artificial pitch and training space. The Playing Pitch Strategy highlights the need to “enhance the 3G rubber crumb carpet due to be replaced by 2020”, while the Indoor Sports Strategy notes the outdoor sports need for tennis court improvements there.

3. Would it provide wider community benefit?

The artificial 3G pitch and tennis courts already have full public access for bookings & use after curricular hours, with full community access to the site.

4. How much would it cost?

a. The S106 funds requested would be a contribution towards the full cost of upgrading and renewing the pitch and would be spent towards upgrading and providing a new and improved impact absorbing shock pad and new carpet. The whole project is estimated to be around £65,000 and the


Academy has requested £40,000 of outdoor sports funds towards the artificial pitch upgrade.

b. The whole project is estimated to be around £40,000 and the college has funds of £18,000 and requests additional funds of up to £25,000 towards the upgrade of the playing surfaces.

CAMBRIDGE RUGBY CLUB

1. What is proposed?

Alongside its own fund-raising, the Rugby Club has had a significant investment of S106 funds recently of £200,000 to upgrade, modernise and extend the changing facilities and open their site up for community use. The Active Lifestyles team are currently working with the Rugby Club on a range of projects and attendance at events across the City. The club has now requested S106 funding towards the upgrade of their floodlights on the Grantchester Road site. It has a range of floodlighting across several of their pitches, not only on the main rugby pitch but also on several pitches other pitches used for second team and junior games and training during the week.

2. Why is it needed?

The Playing Pitch Strategy highlights that “Cambridge Rugby Club – currently over play their pitch on training days to the equivalent of requiring 3 additional pitches. On match days the pitch is currently underplayed by 2 pitches per week at peak times on a Saturday. This could lend itself to midweek provision if floodlights were installed on site.” As with the Abbey Astroturf floodlighting project (which was approved for S106 funding by the then Executive Councillor in June 2018, the rugby club’s lights are of a similar age and design and they too are now finding it difficult to keep them all in a good state of repair and parts are now becoming hard to find and expensive to source. It is seeking to upgrade all of its lights to LED systems, and reduce the ongoing utility cost, and costs of maintenance and servicing, and should reduce the light emissions form the site with the new LED light technology being more focused on the immediate areas to light.


3. Would it provide wider community benefit?

Yes, with an existing community use agreement. If the £40,000 is awarded, officers propose to amend the agreement so that one of the floodlit grass pitches currently marked up for rugby would instead have generic training markings put in place. This pitch could then be hired by other sports teams and clubs for general training purposed during the week and at weekends.

This would then then provide training space in line with an identified strategic need within the Playing Pitch Strategy for more floodlit grass training pitches, that can be used in the evenings and weekends for a range of sporting clubs and users.

4. How much would it cost?

The project is estimated to cost around £80,000 and have been approved a grant of £40,000 from the RFU governing body and now seek to secure the additional funds required to complete the project (that is, £40,000).

5. Context

The floodlighting project will deliver an environmental saving over the current halide bulb provision, and a similar project at Abbey Astroturf saw savings of around 42,500kwh (15 tonnes of CO2) per annum, whilst the Council will not directly benefit from the savings it does meet the Council’s wider objectives to promote other organisations within the city to reduce their carbon footprints and emissions.


Assessing whether to recommend a specific S106 contribution for community facilities when there is no nearby facility on the target list

Appendix F

Is there demonstrable evidence that the

development would create an impact that cannot be met from existing capacity?

NO

No mitigation needed

(or possible)

YES

Could the impact of the development be addressed via an on-site mitigation?

YES

Seek on-site

mitigation

NO

Is there a Council-owned or managed community facility (on the ‘target list’) in the

vicinity of the development.

YES

Recommend for a

specific S106 contribution

NO

Is there an externally run community facility in the vicinity of the development?

NO

Unable to recommend a specific

off-site contribution

YES

Would its management/owners be willing & able to undertake works to improve their

community facility in a way that would mitigate the impact of the development and that would

be accessible to the wider community?

NO



YES

Would they be willing & able to go ahead if insufficient funding was to come forward via

the specific S106 contribution(s)? Would they be able to raise the rest of the funding?

NO



YES

Would they be willing & able to wait for the specific contributions to be paid (say, 3 years or more for each one) before going ahead?

NO



YES

Recommend specific contribution with an external community facility

Report p

Item

S106 F(STRE

Key Dec 1. EX 1.1 Of

imimonregannespne

1.2 Th

forforTh(wrec

To: CounciExecut

Environ

ReportTim WeTel: 012

Wards

page no.

FUNDINEETS A

cision

XECUTIV

ff-site S10pacts of tproving p legal aggulationsd is unev

eed to maecific one

egotiating

his report r play arer the use hese will bith the opcommend

llor Katieive Coun

nment & C

t by: etherfield223 - 457

affected

1

NG: NEAND OP

E SUMM

06 contribtheir deveplay areareements. S106 fu

venly spreake a distes. The C play are

sets out ea and op

of S106 be assespportunitydations c

e Thornbuncillor for

Commun

, Urban G7313 Em

d: All

EXT STPEN SP

MARY

butions pelopments and ops and havunding avead acrosinction be

Council usa and op

the procepen spacefunding wsed againy for counan be rep

urrow, Streets a

nity Scruti

Growth Pmail: tim.w

TEPS PACES

paid by dets on locaen spaceve to be uvailability ss the citetween gses ‘targe

pen space

ess for fue improvewill be invnst the rencillor inpported to

and Open

iny Comm

Project Mawetherfiel

S)

evelopersal amenites in Camused in liis more l

ty. Officiageneric Set lists’ ase specific

uture genement provited fromelevant seput), so th

this Com

n Spaces

mittee

anager d@camb

Ag

s help to mties (for e

mbridge). ne with oimited tha

al regulati106 contrs a startin

c contribu

eric S106ojects. In

m late Maelection chat fundinmmittee in

21/03/20

bridge.gov

Agenda pa

mitigate texample,

They areofficial an it onceons highributions ng point ftions.

6 fundingn 2019, prrch to 30criteria in ng n June.

019

v.uk

age no.

the by

e based

e was light the and

for

g rounds roposals April. May


1.3 Generic S106 funding rounds can only seek project proposals from wards where S106 funding is available locally. The wards highlighted in bold denote those with the greatest amounts of S106 funding available.

Table 1: Wards from which proposals are invited by 30 April 20191

Play areas2 Open spaces3

Cherry Hinton Coleridge Market

Newnham Queen Edith’s Trumpington

Abbey Cherry Hinton

Coleridge Market

Romsey

Petersfield Queen Edith’s Trumpington

West Chesterton

1.4 The report also highlights plans to commission a public art project close

to Trumpington’s boundary with Petersfield and Coleridge, in order to make timely use of a nearby, time-limited public art contribution.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS


2.1 agree the arrangements for annual, generic S106 funding round for play areas and open spaces as long as there is sufficient, generic S106 funding available (paragraphs 4.1-4.5)

2.2 agree that, where there is less than £10,000 of unallocated, generic

play area and/or informal open space S106 funding available in a ward, this can be used to supplement spend on appropriate local projects

1. References in this report to generic S106 funding for play areas and open spaces are

short-hand for the ‘provision for children and teenagers’ and ‘informal open spaces’ contribution types respectively.

2. denotes that, whilst there is limited ‘play area’ S106 funding availability in Cherry Hinton, Market and Newnham wards, proposals for improvements to large play areas in those wards could be considered, drawing on contributions from major developments parts of Trumpington ward nearer the city centre.

3. denotes that, in addition to unallocated ‘open space’ S106 contributions in Abbey, Market and Romsey, there are some contributions allocated to projects that have not yet moved forward and are, therefore, under review. In case these reviews lead to recommendations in June 2019 to reassign this funding, ideas are invited about how else this funding might be used on other open space improvements in these wards.


identified for specific S106 contributions or via the Environmental Improvement Programme (for projects approved by the Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces) (see paragraph 3.10);

2.3 return decision-making over the use of generic play area and informal

open space S106 funding to the Executive Councillor, while maintaining opportunities for all ward councilors to comment on proposals from their part of the city (see paragraphs 4.6-4.7);

2.4 instruct officers to develop proposals for a public art commission (with a

budget of between £50,000 - £75,000) in Trumpington ward or close to its boundary with Petersfield and Coleridge wards and report back to this Committee later in 2019 (see paragraph 4.8).

2.5 instruct officers to make all city councilors aware of the evidence-based

target lists for play areas and open spaces that are used as a starting point for negotiating specific S106 contributions (see paragraph 5.7).

3. BACKGROUND 3.1 An overview of the Council’s approach to S106 funding can be found at

www.cambridge.gov.uk/our-approach-to-s1064. The key points are that:

a. off-site S106 contributions provide a way for developers to make appropriate payments, when not mitigating the impact of their developments on-site, which can be used to provide or improve relevant local facilities and amenities.

b. Officers carefully assess project proposals and manage the funding to comply with relevant policies, regulations and legal agreements in terms of how, where and when the contributions can be used.

c. There have been significant changes to the context in which S106 funding operates in recent years. Regulatory and government policy changes have led to less flexibility over the use of S106 funding, not least the move away from generic to specific S106 contributions5,6.

4. This may be particularly helpful for anyone not familiar with the working of S106

funding. The overview now includes a summary of the ‘target lists’ used as a starting point for seeking specific S106 contributions.

5. The Council’s approach to specific S106 contributions is set out in Section 5.


As the emphasis on justifying the need for contributions has increased, the Council has produced facility audits and strategies (including the Outdoor Play Investment Strategy 2016-2021) to help inform S106 decision-making.

3.2 Generic S106 funding and decision-making: The Council instituted a new approach to generic S106 funding rounds in 2012. Some priority-setting decisions for certain S106 contribution types were devolved to area committees. However, as generic S106 funding has become more limited, more of these decision-making powers7 have returned to the relevant executive councillors, in order to maximise the spending power of remaining contributions. Provisions have been built into the funding round process so that ward councilors still have the opportunity to comment on local proposals.

3.3 As alternative way of maximising spending power, the Executive

Councillor in October 2016 agreed to devolve all remaining, generic play areas and open space contributions to area committees. Further spending of these S106 funds since then has reduced availability to the levels shown in Table 2 on page 5. In this context, the decision-making arrangements need to be reviewed (see paragraph 4.6-4.7).

3.4 Differences between contribution types: Within a broadly consistent

approach to all S106 contribution types, it is important to recognise importance differences between funding for play area and open space S106 funding on the one hand and public art S106 funding on the other. For more details about public art, see Appendix B.

3.5 The Council tends to use generic play area and open space S106 contributions from developments in a particular ward on improvements in the same ward or nearby in a neighbouring ward. It also uses some S106 funding (especially from major housing developments) towards strategic projects benefiting more than one area of the city. Appendix A summarises S106-funded projects in each ward since 2012.

6. In line with these changes, the Council no longer collects S106 contributions for public

art but, instead, can secure on-site public art via planning conditions.

7. Decision-making powers over the use of generic S106 funds for public art and public realm were returned to the Executive Councillor in October 2014. A similar approach has been taken to all S106 contribution types within the remit of the Executive Councillor for Communities.


S106 funding availability

3.6 Table 2 sets out the latest provisional analysis of remaining, unallocated S106 funding availability for play areas and open spaces8. The uneven spread across the city reflects both variations in the amount of development (and S106 contributions received) in each ward and how much of these S106 funds have already been allocated or spent. The table needs to be read alongside the comments in paragraphs 3.7-3.11.

Table 2: Provisional S106 funding availability9

Ward Play areas Open space

Abbey £10k-£25k Below £10k

Arbury Below £10k Below £10k

Castle Below £10k Below £10k

Cherry Hinton Below £10k £25k-£50k

Coleridge £50k-£75k £25k-£50k

East Chesterton Below £10k Below £10k

King’s Hedges None Below £10k

Market £10k-£25k £25k-£50k

Newnham Below £10k Below £10k

Petersfield None £10k-£25k

Queen Edith’s £50k-£75k £10k-£25k

Romsey None £10k-£25k

Trumpington Over £150k Over £150k

West Chesterton Below £10k £50k-£75k

8. For details of generic public art S106 funding availability, see Appendix B. Public

realm S106 funding also comes within this portfolio, but this is not covered in this report. There are around £60,000 of S106 public realm contributions from Abbey ward (Harvest Way), with a March 2025 expiry date: following a S106 report in October 2016, officers are developing proposals for local public realm improvements.

9. For fields marked with ‘’, see paragraph 3.8. For others with ‘’, see paragraph 3.9.


3.7 The funding availability analysis is a work in progress. Further work will be undertaken, prior to the committee meeting, to review the allocation of contributions to projects10 in order, where possible, to explore scope for maximising the availability of S106 funding in wards where it is particularly low. Even so, this is unlikely to increase substantially the amounts that are available in those wards that currently have less than £10,000 available for particular contribution types.

3.8 Consistent with all previous S106 funding rounds, the 2019 generic

S106 funding rounds can only seek project proposals from those wards where S106 funding is available locally. However, given that an improvement project in one ward can help to mitigate the impact of a nearby development in another ward, it does not follow that all contributions from a ward must necessarily be used in the same ward. This raises the possibility, for example, of using some play area S106 funding from large-scale developments in parts of Trumpington closest to the city centre for strategic play area improvements (benefitting more than one area of the city, in Cherry Hinton (e.g., at Cherry Hinton Hall), Market or Newnham.

3.9 Whilst most of the generic S106-funded projects for play area and open

space improvements have either been completing or are making progress, two projects allocated previous funding rounds have not yet been able to move forward.

a. During the 2017 funding round, £10,000 was allocated11 to open space improvements at St Clement’s churchyard in Market ward, on the basis that it would be accessible to all. Subsequent scoping of the project has revealed that this project is more complex than first envisaged and that the works needed to make the churchyard accessible to all would require more than the original allocation.

b. During the 2015 funding round, £85,000 was allocated12 to formalising the existing BMX track at Coldham’s Common with a more permanent, properly constructed track and obstacles (involving wider, gritted paths and fencing). Further consultation with users of

10. In line with the S106 regulations and stipulations set out in S106 agreements.

11. By the West/Central Area Committee in March 2017, based on the officer assessment of the application made on behalf of St Clement’s Church.

12. By the East Area Committee in October 2015.


the existing improvised track has raised questions about the amount and type of the formal improvements that BMX users would welcome without taking away from their ability to develop and modify the obstacles. Of the £85,000 allocation, around £36,00013 is from S106 contributions received in 2012/13, which the Council is keen to make sure can be spent in a timely way (within the next few years).

c. Over the next few months, officers will review these two projects in consultation with relevant ward councillors and others in order to assess how the projects might move forward and how this might affect project costs. The aim is to report back to this Committee in June 2019, either with recommendations for continuing the projects or varying the S106 funding allocations or deallocating the current allocations so that they can be reassigned to another project.

3.10 As some wards have less than £10,000 of generic S106 funds

remaining in one or both of these contribution types, it is unlikely that these could fund stand-alone projects. Where there are no other options for using this money on agreed, generic S106 projects, recommendation 2.2 proposes that it can be used appropriately to support other, relevant local projects funded by specific S106 contributions or via the Environment Improvement Programme (for projects approved by the Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces)14.

3.11 The generic S106 funding rounds have helped to make sure that S106

contributions are used properly before any expiry dates (mostly within ten years of payment)15. Appendix C identifies those unallocated, generic contributions which are within five years of their time limit. By seeking further play area and open space projects for S106-funding in 2019 (and, if necessary, in future years too), this should provide greater assurance of being able to use these funds on time.

13. Of the £36,000 allocations received in 2012/13, roughly three quarters is from Romsey

ward and a quarter from Abbey ward.

14. Whilst specific contributions cannot be used for generic purposes, generic contributions can be used to supplement specific contributions

15. Where S106 expiry dates are not stipulated, the Council still looks to make sure they are used on appropriate projects within 10 years.


4. FUTURE FUNDING ROUNDS 4.1 Where wards have more than £10,000 of generic S106 funding

available in the play area or open space contribution types, it is hoped that it will be possible to allocate most of this to suitable projects during the 2019 funding round. However, in case that there needs to be further funding rounds in future years, recommendation seeks approval for an annual process that can be repeated in parts of those parts of the city where sufficient S106 funding remains, without having to come back to committee to agree the arrangements first.

4.2 The flow chart below sets out the proposed annual process (from 2019)

for generic funding rounds for play areas and open spaces.

Chart 1: Annual generic S106 funding round process: play areas & open spaces Proposals invited from wards

where funding available. (March)

Deadline for seeking grant applications & proposals

(by end April)

Councillors invited to comment

on relevant proposals (mid-to-late May)

Applications assessed against selection criteria (May)

Proposals, assessment and funding recommendations reported to E&C

Scrutiny Committee in June

Generic S106 funding rounds: play areas & open spaces

4.3 To reiterate the point made earlier, the 2019 generic S106 funding rounds can only seek project proposals from those wards where S106 funding is available locally. The scale of the proposals to be put forward will need to reflect the local availability of funding. As a rough guide:

a. £10,000-25,000 of S106 funding could provide additional items of equipment and landscaping features;


b. £25,000-£50,000 could help refurbish an existing small play area16 or open space;

c. £50,000-75,000 could help to refurbish an existing medium-sized play areas or open space; and

d. over £75,000 could help to refurbish an existing large play area or open space.

4.4 Local councilors, residents and others wishing to propose play area or

open space improvements will be asked to complete a short form.

a This will invite applications to identify what sort of improvements are proposed, where and why they are needed. It is also helpful to highlight which aspects of the improvements would be most important, in case it is not possible to provide everything requested from the S106 funding available.

b. In cases where there may be more eligible project proposals in a ward with a combined cost more than the S106 funding available locally, the Executive Councillor may need to prioritise which projects or features are allocated S106 funding.

4.5 For generic S106 funding rounds for play areas and open spaces,

officers seek to apply the same seven-point selection criteria to the play area and open spaces funding round as had been used in previous years. To be eligible for S106 funding, proposals would need to be:

a. eligible for S106 funding (i.e., within the city of Cambridge and not for repairs, maintenance, like-for-like replacements or running costs);

b. affordable within the S106 funding available;

c. an effective use of resources (e.g., related to relevant Council strategies, such as the Outdoor Play Investment Strategy);

d. providing additional benefit;

e. accessible, in line with Council grants and equalities policies;

16. Play area improvements in a wider recreation ground may include the use of generic

open space S106 funding, say for fencing and gates to the play area.


f. realistic, achievable and ready to be considered (particularly projects which could realistically be completed within 18 months of a funding decision; and

g. financially viable, with a robust business case and/or management plans.

4.6 In the context of paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3, recommendation 2.3 seeks to

bring back decision-making over the use of generic S106 funding for play areas and open spaces to the Executive Councillor, following scrutiny of the proposals by this Committee.

a. Given that, in parts of the city, S106 funding availability levels have run down so much, not least since the 2017 funding round, it would now make more sense for them to be addressed in one single report to scrutiny committee, instead of four reports to area committees. This would enable more effective use of officer time in meeting competing workload pressures.

b. It keeps open the possibility of being able to consider the possibility strategic projects, benefitting the whole city, in nearby areas (such as West/Central area) that no longer have large amounts of generic S106 funding available in their own wards.

c. This would also be consistent with the approach to all the other S106 contribution types17, which already report to this Committee, prior to decision-making by the relevant executive councilor.

4.7 Importantly, councillor engagement will still continue to be a key feature

of the S106 funding and decision-making processes. Where S106 funding is available in a ward, the local ward councillors will be18:

a. invited to put forward eligible proposals for its use;

b. asked to encourage local groups also to put forward eligible proposals; and

c. given the opportunity to comment on any of the proposals received in their area of the city, as part of the assessment process.

17. ….which have previously been subject to devolved S106 decision-making….

18. When community facilities S106 funding was returned to Executive Councillor decision-making in January 2018, these councilor engagement engagements were acceptable to the Community Services Scrutiny Committee at the time.


Proposals for a public art commission19

4.8 Whilst most unallocated generic public art S106 contributions will be used in due course on projects flowing from a new Public Art Strategy20, there is a particular focus in making use of between £50,000 and £75,0000 of public art contributions from a major development in Trumpington ward (near its border with Petersfield and Coleridge wards), which has to be contractually committed by January 2022. Officers will develop concepts, undertake relevant research and produce a project brief (possibly around the theme of issues facing young people in Cambridge) for a public art project in the vicinity21. They will report back to this Committee in June or October 2019.

5. SPECIFIC S106 FUNDING 5.1 Since changes to the official regulations, which came into effect in April

2015, councils have been required to seek specific S106 contributions (as opposed to generic ones), which need to be justified and directly related to mitigating the impact of developments in the vicinity. Under the current regulations, no more than five specific contributions can be agreed for any single project.

5.2 The need for specific S106 contributions to be agreed (normally by the Planning Committee) at the same time that major planning applications are determined requires officers to work to very tight timescales to identify off-site projects that would mitigate the impact of particular developments. As this leaves little or no scope for local consultation or councillor involvement in each case, a scrutiny committee report in March 2016 set out evidence-based ‘target lists’22 of play areas and open spaces where mitigations would be needed, as a starting point for

19. The context is set out in Appendix B.

20. The Public Art Strategy is under development and is due to be reported to this Committee in October 2019.

21. This reflects the need for the mitigation to be near the development from which the S106 funding comes.

22. The ‘target lists’ are summarised in the S106 overview briefing note, mentioned under paragraph 3.1, which can be found at www.cambridge.gov.uk/our-approach-to-s106.


negotiating relevant specific contributions. Following committee scrutiny, these ‘target lists’ were agreed by the Executive Councillor23.

5.3 It is important to note the following points.

a. Being on a ‘target list’ does not necessarily mean that specific contributions will besecured. It depends, in part, on the nature & location of major developments that arise.

b. Officers may identify other projects to mitigate the impact of particular proposed developments where these might be more appropriate and relevant.

c. Although there are some exceptions, most of the specific contributions agreed for play areas and open spaces are for small amounts (i.e., under £10,000 each) and only one or two have been agreed per project.

d. It may take up to three years after a S106 agreement is signed (at the same time as planning approval) for the development to get under way. If the S106 triggers for development are set for later than the commencement of development, it may take even longer than that for the specific contributions to become payable. Most specific S106 contributions agreed have not yet met their triggers for payment. Once sufficient funds for projects are received from specific S106 contributions, they can then be taken forward.

e. If a development does not proceed within the three-year life span of a planning approval, the specific contribution would normally cease to be payable, although – under the current regulations – it may still count towards the five specific contributions’ for a single project.

f. If a specific contribution, which is received, cannot then be used for its intended purpose or within any time limits stipulated, the general expectation is that it would need to be returned to the developer.

5.4 The target lists had been originally intended as an interim measure for

helping to secure specific S106 contributions before the Council could introduce a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The assumption in 2016 was that this might be possible in 2018, but it took longer to adopt

23. This report to the Community Services Scrutiny Committee in March 2016, which

includes the ‘target lists’ for play areas and open spaces, continues to be available on the Council’s website at www.cambridge.gov.uk/changes-to-s106-funding.


the Local Plan than originally expected. Indeed, the Council withdrew its original draft CIL scheme in autumn 2017, with the intention of considering a joint CIL with South Cambridgeshire District Council. This will also take stock of the appropriate way forward in the light of expected changes to government guidance (which are still awaited).

5.5. Having adopted the new Local Plan in September 2018, the Greater

Cambridge Planning Service is now gearing up to prepare the next Local Plan, including reviews of the Planning Obligations Strategy and the Joint Infrastructure Plan and its future approach to S106 agreements and CIL. In the meantime, the Council may need to continue its S106 interim approach (with target lists) for some while longer.

5.6 The Council’s evidence base for justifying open space and play area

needs for specific S106 contributions remains the same as it was in 2016. For example, the evidence base for play areas is the Outdoor Play Investment Strategy 2016-2021, which continues to be a ‘live document’. It would be difficult to justify a further update to the ‘target lists’ without more up-to-date evidence.

5.7 Officers are mindful that, even though the ‘target list’ information has

been, and continues to be, available via the Council’s Developer contributions web pages, not all Members may be sighted on the Council’s approach. It is, therefore, proposed that officers write to all ward councilors to make them aware, including the ward-by-ward information featured in the appendices.

6. IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Financial implications:

a. Any S106 funding for the provision of new Council-owned facilities and amenities in the city is likely to produce additional financial implications for Council revenue budgets, which would need to be budgeted for. As existing Council-owned facilities amenities already have budgets for operational costs, there is a greater likelihood that the running and maintenance costs of S106-funded improvements could be subsumed within existing budgets. There is, therefore, an assumption that projects to be funded from the remaining generic


S106 funding availability are more likely to be improvements to existing facilities24.

b. In line with the Outdoor Play Investment Strategy, there is an assumption that the S106 funding is more likely to be focussed on existing, medium and large-scale play areas, rather than new play areas or smaller ones.

6.2 Staffing implications: The S106 funding round process will be

resourced from within existing staffing resources. The recommendation to bring back decision-making of the use of generic S106 funding for play areas and open spaces to the Executive Councillor reflects the need to consolidate the number of committee reports. It will also make it more manageable for officers to co-ordinate the S106 funding process alongside other workloads.

6.3 Equality and poverty implications: The primary purpose of S106

funding is to mitigate the impact of development (not address pre-existing needs). The equality implications for particular S106-funded proposals are considered at the business case stage, before projects are implemented.

6.4 Other implications: Climate change, community safety and other

considerations are also addressed at the business case stage. 7. CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION CONSIDERATIONS 7.1 Seeking proposals for the use of S106 funding is a ‘business as usual

activity’, rather than public consultation. It is, therefore, appropriate for it to go ahead during the run-up to the City Council elections in early May.

7.2 The funding round process will encourage proposals and comments

from city councilors in wards where S106 funding is available locally. The process will also be publicised via the Council’s website, social media and news releases. Given the reducing levels of generic S106 funding availability, care will be taken to manage public expectations.

24. In cases whether S106-funded projects are for new Council facilities or amenities,

checks are made as part of the business case approval process to ensure that the necessary approvals for revenue budget implications have been obtained.


8. BACKGROUND PAPERS Background papers used in the preparation of this report:

a. S106 report (Streets & Open Spaces) on 2018 S106 funding process, Community Services Scrutiny Committee, January 2018.

b. S106 report (Public Art) on 2018 funding recommendations, Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee, June 2018.

c. S106 priority-setting process (Streets & Open Spaces) report, Community Services Scrutiny Committee, October 2016.

d. ‘Interim approach to S106 funding (City Centre and Public Places)’ report, Community Services Scrutiny Committee, March 2016.

e. Outdoor Play Investment Strategy 2016-21. Further information about the Council’s approach to managing S106

contributions can be found at www.cambridge.gov.uk/s106.

9. APPENDICES

A. Overview of S106-funded projects since 2012

B. Public Art S106 funding: key points

C. Off-site public art projects funded by generic S106 contributions since 2012

D. Unallocated S106 contributions with expiry dates before June 2024

10. INSPECTION OF PAPERS

To inspect the background papers or if you have a query on the report please contact Tim Wetherfield, Urban Growth Project manager, tel: 01223 - 457313, email: [email protected].


Appendix A

Generic S106-funded projects since 2012 & specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 ABBEY WARD (East Area) S106 funds relating to play area and open space improvements have been used (as appropriate) for these projects since 2012.


Abbey Pool paddling pool splash pad Completed (2014) £125,000

Abbey Pool play area Completed (2015) £103,000

Abbey pool play area (improved access) Completed (2016) £9,000

Coldham's Common BMX track To be reviewed26 £80,000

Coldham’s Common LNR extension Completed (2014) £36,000

Ditton Fields play area Completed (2017) £37,000

Dudley Road play area Completed (2016) £39,000

Peverel Road play area Completed (2013) £81,000

Stourbridge Common biodiversity Completed (2014) £6,000 Specific contributions agreed for improving play areas in this ward: Coldham’s Common play area and Ditton Fields play area. The ‘target list’ also highlights the need for improvements to play areas at:

Dudley Road; Jack Warren Green; Peverel Road & Stourbridge Common. Specific contributions agreed for improving open spaces in this ward: Abbey Sports Centre (open space) Coldham's Common BMX Track Coldham’s Common Ditton Fields Rec Ground Stourbridge Common

The ‘target list’ also highlights the need for improving open spaces at: Barnwell Road East and Barnwell Road West Thorpe Way Rec Ground.

25. S106 funding figures are rounded down to nearest £000. For projects not yet

completed, these represent budget allocations – actual costs may vary.

26. This project is addressed in paragraph 3.9b of the main report.


Generic S106-funded play area and open space improvement projects since 2012 and specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 ARBURY WARD27 (North Area) S106 funds relating to play area and open space improvements have been used (as appropriate) for these projects since 2012.


Alexandra Gardens play area improvements & landscaping


Perse Way flats play area Completed (2016) £24,000

No specific contributions for play areas in this ward have yet been agreed, but the play area ‘target list’ does highlight the need for improvements at: Alexandra Gardens Rec Ground play area St Albans Rec Ground play area. Specific contributions agreed for improving open spaces in this ward: Alexandra Gardens Rec Ground. The ‘target list’ also highlights the need for improving open spaces at: St Albans Rec Ground.

27. See the reference to Arbury Town Park under King’s Hedges ward.


Generic S106-funded play area and open space improvement projects since 2012 and specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 CASTLE WARD (West/Central Area) S106 funds relating to play area and open space improvements have been used (as appropriate) for these projects since 2012.


Histon Road Rec entrances and landscaping

Completed (2016) £13,00028

Histon Road Rec Ground improvements

Completed (2016) £48,000

Histon Road Rec play area surfacing improvements

Completed (2018) £30,000

Shelly Row play area Completed (2016) £50,000

Area-wide project funded by generic S106 contributions:

In addition, in 2014, there was a £30,000 project to provide new benches in parks across the West/Central Area (in Castle, Market and Newnham wards).

More recently, around £1,500 has also been spent on installing new benches by the Coton footpath (in Newnham ward) and on the green at Carisbrooke Road (Castle ward).

Specific contributions agreed for improving play areas in this ward: Storey’s Field play area. Specific contributions agreed for improving open spaces in this ward: Storeys Field open space.

28. This represents the costs and landscaping and access improvements, which took

place alongside public art installations (£56,000) at the entrances to the Histon Road Rec (mentioned under Castle ward under Appendix C).


Generic S106-funded play area and open space improvement projects since 2012 and specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 CHERRY HINTON WARD (South Area) S106 funds relating to play area and open space improvements have been used (as appropriate) for these projects since 2012.


Cherry Hinton Hall grounds improvements – phase 1

Completed (2013) £74,000

Cherry Hinton Hall grounds improvements - phase 2

Being implemented

£400,000

Cherry Hinton Rec Ground Completed (2014) £136,00029

Fulbourn Road open space improvements Completed (2019) £10,000

Reilly Way play area improvements Completed (2017) £34,000

Tenby Close play area improvements Completed (2019) £50,000

Specific contributions agreed for improving play areas in this ward: Kathleen Elliot Way play area Reilly Way play area Cherry Hinton Hall play area. The ‘target list’ also highlights the need for improving the play area at: Tenby Close play area. Specific contributions agreed for improving open spaces in this ward: Limekiln Close Cherry Hinton Rec Ground. The ‘target list’ also highlights the need for improving open spaces at: Cherry Hinton Hall.

29. This project including play area and skate park improvements, cost around £136,000

in total. In addition, around £7,000 was spent on providing panna football goals in a kick-about area at the Cherry Hinton Rec Ground.


Generic S106-funded play area and open space improvement projects since 2012 and specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 COLERIDGE (East Area) S106 funds relating to play area and open space improvements have been used (as appropriate) for these projects since 2012.


Brothers' Place landscaping & natural play Completed (2018) £7,500

Coleridge Paddling Pool - splash pad Completed (2014) £109,000

Coleridge Rec Ground improvements30 Completed (2017) £167,000

Lichfield Road play area Completed (2019) £45,000

St Thomas play area improvements Completed (2015) £49,000

Specific contributions agreed for improving play areas in this ward: Coleridge Rec Ground play area Lichfield Road play area. The ‘target list’ also highlights the need for improving the play area at: Ashbury Close play area Robert May Close. Specific contributions agreed for improving open spaces in this ward: Coleridge Rec Ground.

30. This was part of a wider recreation ground improvement project, which included tennis

court and multi-use games area provision (£156,000 of outdoor sports S106 funding)


Generic S106-funded play area and open space improvement projects since 2012 and specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 EAST CHESTERTON WARD (North Area) S106 funds relating to play area and open space improvements have been used (as appropriate) for these projects since 2012.


Bramblefields local nature reserve Under way £10,000

Brown’s Field BMX track improvements Completed (2015) £31,000

Chesterton Rec Ground new skate/scooter park

Under development

£50,000

Installation of play equipment at 3 East Chesterton play area

Completed (2016) £37,000

Logan’s Meadow LNR Completed (2015) £138,000

Specific contributions agreed for improving play areas in this ward: Chesterton Rec Ground play area Green End Road Rec play area. The ‘target list’ also highlights the need for improving the play area at: Scotland Road Rec Ground. Specific contributions agreed for improving open spaces in this ward: Browns Field Youth & Community Centre open space. The ‘target list’ also highlights the need for improving open spaces at: Causeway Park Vie site.


Generic S106-funded play area and open space improvement projects since 2012 and specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 KING’S HEDGES WARD (North Area) S106 funds relating to play area and open space improvements have been used (as appropriate) for these projects since 2012.


The Pulley play area Completed (2013) £75,000

Kings Hedges Paddling Pool splash pad Completed (2014) £133,000

Nun's Way skate park Completed (2016) £62,000

No specific contributions have been agreed for improving play areas in this ward, nor are any featured on the ‘target list’. Specific contributions to mitigate the play area impacts of any new major developments in King’s Hedges will be considered on a case-by-case basis. No specific contributions for open spaces in this ward have yet been agreed, but the open spaces ‘target list’ does highlight the need for improvements at: Arbury Town Park King’s Hedges Rec Ground.


Generic S106-funded play area and open space improvement projects since 2012 and specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 MARKET WARD (West/Central Area) S106 funds relating to play area and open space improvements have been used (as appropriate) for these projects since 2012.

Funded by generic S106 contributions31 Status £ S106

Christ's Pieces play improvements Completed (2018) £15,000

Jesus Green drainage Completed (2015) £100,000

Jesus Green Play Area Completed (2013) £121,000

Midsummer Common orchard access Completed (2014) £5,000

Parker's Piece lighting Completed (2015) £39,000

Parker's Piece paths: grass reinforcements Under development

£75,000

St Clement's Churchyard open space To be reviewed32 £10,000 No specific contributions for play areas in this ward have yet been agreed, but the play area ‘target list’ does highlight the need for improvements at: Christ’s Pieces play area. No specific contributions for open spaces in this ward have yet been agreed, but the open spaces ‘target list’ does highlight the need for improvements at: Christ’s Pieces Jesus Green Midsummer Common Parker’s Piece.

31. See also the ‘new benches in West/Central parks’ project (featured under Castle

ward), which benefitted all three wards in the area.

32. This project is addressed under paragraph 3.9a of the report.


Generic S106-funded play area and open space improvement projects since 2012 and specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 NEWNHAM WARD (West/Central) S106 funds relating to play area and open space improvements have been used (as appropriate) for these projects since 2012.

Funded by generic S106 contributions33 Status £ S106

Hodson's Folly improved access Completed (2017) £14,000

Lammas Land Solar studs on path Completed (2015) £800

Paradise Local Nature Reserve Completed (2014) £102,000

Sheep's Green watercourse improvements Completed (2017) £59,000 No specific contributions have been agreed for improving play areas in this ward, nor are any featured on the ‘target list’. Specific contributions to mitigate the play area impacts of any new major developments in Newnham will be considered on a case-by-case basis. No specific contributions for open spaces in this ward have yet been agreed, but the open spaces ‘target list’ does highlight the need for improvements at: Lammas Land Paradise Local Nature Reserve Penarth Place Queen’s Green Sheep’s Green.

33. See also the ‘new benches in West/Central parks’ project and the new bench by

Coton footpath (featured under Castle ward).


Generic S106-funded play area and open space improvement projects since 2012 and specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015

PETERSFIELD WARD (East Area) S106 funds relating to play area and open space improvements have been used (as appropriate) for these projects since 2012.


Bath House play area Completed (2016) £60,000

Mill Road Cemetery footpath & access improvements

Completed (2018) £130,000

Petersfield play area Completed (2013) £17,000

St Matthew's Piece play area improvements

Being implemented

£35,000

Specific contributions agreed for improving play areas in this ward: St Matthews Piece play area. The ‘target list’ also highlights the need for improving the play areas at: Flower Street play area Petersfield play area Shenstone Street play area Sleaford Street play area. Specific contributions agreed for improving open spaces in this ward: St Matthews Piece. The ‘target list’ also highlights the need for improving open spaces at: Petersfield.


Generic S106-funded play area and open space improvement projects since 2012 and specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 ROMSEY WARD (East Area) S106 funds relating to play area and open space improvements have been used (as appropriate) for these projects since 2012.


Coldham's Lane play area Completed (2019)

Specific contributions agreed for improving play areas in this ward: Romsey Rec Ground play area. The ‘target list’ also highlights the need for improving the play areas at: Brooks Road play area. Specific contributions agreed for improving open spaces in this ward: Brooks Road (Land between 117-135 Brooks Road) Romsey Rec Ground (climbing wall/tower and storage)34 Romsey Rec Ground (general open space improvements) Great Eastern Street open space.

34. This specific contribution is under review in the light of representations from local

residents. If any specific contribution cannot be used for its intended purpose, the Council may not be able to renegotiate it and it may need to be returned to the developer.


Generic S106-funded play area and open space improvement projects since 2012 and specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015

QUEEN EDITH’S WARD (South Area) S106 funds relating to play area and open space improvements have been used (as appropriate) for these projects since 2012.


Gunhild Close play area improvements Completed (2019) £50,000

Nightingale Avenue Rec trim trail Completed (2013) £7,00035

Nightingale Avenue Rec community green space

Completed (2017) £22,000

Nightingale Avenue Rec play area Completed (2018) £60,000

Specific contributions agreed for improving play areas in this ward: Nightingale Avenue play area The ‘target list’ also highlights the need for improving the play areas at: Gunhild Close play area Holbrook Road play area Specific contributions agreed for improving open spaces in this ward: Nightingale Avenue Rec Ground

35. In addition to this informal open space S106 spend, there was around £23,000

outdoor sports spend on ‘fit kit’.


Generic S106-funded play area and open space improvement projects since 2012 and specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 TRUMPINGTON WARD (South) S106 funds relating to play area and open space improvements have been used (as appropriate) for these projects since 2012.


Accordia footbridge over Hobson’s Brook Under development

£60,000

Accordia open space improvements Under

development £10,000

Bat and vole biodiversity project Completed (2012) £8,000

Accordia scooter park Completed (2015) £35,000

Trumpington Rec Ground trim trail Under


Trumpington Rec skate park Under


Specific contributions agreed for improving play areas in this ward: Trumpington Rec Ground play area36 Specific contributions agreed for improving open spaces in this ward: Trumpington Rec Ground (playing field) Coe Fen The ‘target list’ also highlights the need for improving open spaces at: Accordia development, Brooklands Avenue.

36. Trumpington Rec Ground is also known as King George V Memorial Playing Field.


Generic S106-funded play area and open space improvement projects since 2012 and specific S106 contributions agreed since 2015 WEST CHESTERTON WARD (North Area) S106 funds relating to play area and open space improvements have been used (as appropriate) for these projects since 2012.


Bateson Green play area & landscaping

Completed (2016) £54,000

Chestnut Grove play area Completed (2015) £49,000

No specific contributions for play areas in this ward have yet been agreed, but the play area ‘target list’ does highlight the need for improvements at: Woodhead Drive play area No specific contributions have been agreed for improving open spaces in this ward, nor are any featured on the ‘target list’. Specific contributions to mitigate the play area impacts of any new major developments in West Chesterton will be considered on a case-by-case basis.


Appendix B Public Art S106 funding: key points B1. Public art S106 contributions are for new & original, high quality public

art, which is accessible to the public, involves an artist, engages the community and has a lasting legacy. This has reflected the key points from the Public Art Supplementary Planning Document.

B2. A list of S106-funded public art projects since 2012 can be found in

Appendix C. This includes detail of small-scale public art grants that have been awarded since 2015.

B3. Around half of the generic public art S106 contributions from major

developments have tended to be allocated to strategic public art projects relating to more than one area of the city. For example, the River Cam public art programme includes an on-going £120,000 public art residency and £330,000 provisionally allocated to possible, future S106 projects (not yet identified) related to the River Cam.

B4. In the light of this spending and funding allocations, the following

amounts of public art S106 funding are unallocated. Most of this is for local projects in the same ward or for nearby / relevant projects in a neighbouring ward.

Table: Generic public art S106 funding availability (unallocated contributions)

Ward Available Ward Available

Abbey £15,000 Market £15,000

Arbury £10,000-15,000 Newnham None

Castle None Petersfield £10,000-15,000

Cherry Hinton £15,000-25,000 Queen Edith’s £15,000

Coleridge £75,000-100,000 Romsey £50,000-75,000

E Chesterton None Trumpington > £100,000

King’s Hedges £15,000 W Chesterton None


B5. The S106 (public art) report in January 2018 highlighted that the 2018 small-scale public art grant round would be the last of its kind. Officers are in the process of developing a new Public Art Strategy, which they are due to report back to this Committee in October 2019. This will set out, amongst other issues, the Council’s approach to making use of

B6. Appendix C identifies generic S106 contributions with expiry dates or

other time limits before June 2024. This includes over £50,00037 of unallocated contributions from a development in Trumpington (near its border with Coleridge and Petersfield) which has to be contractually committed to public art projects by January 2022. This is addressed under paragraph 4.8 of the report.

37. Depending on the nature of the project brief that officers develop for the public art

commission in Cambridge, there could be scope of making available up to £75,000 from the public art S106 contribution.


Appendix C

Off-site public art projects funded by generic public art S106 contributions since 2012 S106 funding figures are rounded down to nearest £000. For projects not yet completed, these represent budget allocations – actual costs may vary.


NORTH AREA

Big Draw event [East Chesterton] Completed (2015) £1,000

Bright Lights of CB4 [Arbury / West Chesterton]

Completed (2017) £13,000

Chesterton mural at Co-op at junction of Milton Road & Green End Road [King’s Hedges]

Completed (2017) £3,000

Growing Spaces public art in King’s Hedges [King’s Hedges]

Completed (2017) £2,000

Mitcham’s Models [West Chesterton] Completed (2014) £2,000

Mitcham’s Models at Christmas [West Chesterton]

Completed (2016) £6,000

North Cambridge Academy public art (involving Kettle’s Yard) [King’s Hedges]

Completed (2016) £15,000

Rowan Centre public art, Humberstone Road [West Chesterton]

Completed (2017) £2,000

EAST AREA

‘Clicking to Connectivity’ project at Abbey Meadow Primary School [Abbey]

Completed (2017) £15,000

Mill Road Cemetery public art [Petersfield]

Completed (2014) £69,000

‘News, news, news’ project at The Junction [Coleridge]

On-going £15,000

‘Radio Local’ public art project at The Junction [Coleridge]

Completed (2017) £15,000



Railway workers commemorative public art (Romsey ‘R’)

Completed (2018) £70,000

‘Rhythm, Rhyme and Railways’ [Coleridge and Romsey]

Completed (2017) £15,000

‘The Place where we stand’ performance at St Matthew’s Primary School [Petersfield]

Completed (2018) £15,000

SOUTH AREA

‘Southern Connections’ [Queen Edith’s and Trumpington]

On-going £107,000

‘Tales from the Edge of Town 2070’ [Trumpington]

Completed (2018) £14,000

Trumpington Stitchers: wall-hanging [Trumpington ward]

Completed (2018) £7,000

‘Trumpington Voices’ [Trumpington] Completed (2018) £19,000

Rock Road library – public art project in community garden [Queen Edith’s]

Completed (2015) £6,000

‘60/60’ Wulfstan Way seating public art [Queen Edith’s]

Completed (2012) £45,000

WEST CENTRAL AREA

Dance performance inspired by Antony Gormley exhibition at Kettle’s Yard [Castle]

Completed (2018) £15,000

Ecology sculpture at Sheep’s Green [Newnham]

On-going £15,000

Eddington Flag Parade 2018 [Castle] Completed (2018) £25,000

Histon Road Rec entrances public art [Castle]

Completed (2016) £56,00038

38. This represents costs of the public art installations at the recreation ground entrances.

Alongside this, around £13,000 was spent on landscaping and access improvements (mentioned in Appendix A under Castle ward).



Newnham Croft Primary School stained glass window [Newnham]

Completed (2017) £12,000

Snowy Farr sculpture outside Guildhall [Market ward]

Completed (2012) £73,000

Syd Barrett public art commemoration at Corn Exchange [Market]

Completed (2017) £10,000

STRATEGIC PROJECTS

Cambridge Rules Completed (2018) £115,000

Cambridge Sculpture Trail leaflet [Market, Trumpington]

Completed (2016) £2,000

‘Faith and Hope’ public art to commemorate centenary of votes for women

On-going £30,000

History Trails 1 involving schools from North, East and South areas

Completed (2016) £15,000

History Trails 2 involving schools from North, South and West/Central areas

On-going £15,000

‘In your way’ (Theatre as Architecture: Architecture as Theatre)

Completed (2018) £15,000

Olympics 2012 commemorative public art

Completed (2012) £99,000

Pink Festival Group: ‘Showcase of Queer Arts’

Completed (2017) £8,000

Sounds of Steam project involving local schools in North and East areas

Completed (2017) £15,000

Twilight at the Museum – light projection animation involving local schools in North, East and South areas

Completed (2016) £13,000

“We” light installation, Fitzwilliam Museum

Completed (2019) £16,000


Appendix D

Unallocated GENERIC S106 contributions with expiry dates before June 2024 Amounts rounded to nearest £000.

Expires Contribution type Amount Ward

January 2022 Public art £45,000 Trumpington

December 2022 Informal open space £3,000 Market

March 2023 Public art £3,000 Market

September 2023 Informal open space £39,000 Trumpington

September 2023 Play provision £151,000 Trumpington

October 2023 Informal open space £3,000 Market

October 2023 Play provision £3,000 Market

November 2023 Public art £49,000 Romsey

March 2024 Informal open space £2,000 Castle

April 2024 Public art £15,000 King’s Hedges

May 2024 Informal open space £157,000 Trumpington Allocated S106 contributions that need to be used within five years

D1. Alongside these unallocated generic S106 contributions, officers continue to monitor closely those S106 contributions that need to be used within the next five years, which are allocated to projects currently under development (e.g. Coldham’s Lane BMX track39 and possible future projects as part of the River Cam Public Art programme40).

D2. If any of these projects were unable to proceed, officers would first look to reassign time-limited contributions to alternative, suitable projects (already prioritised at Member-level) that could use the S106 funding in a timely way in place of other less-time limited contributions.

D3. If any such contributions cannot be reassigned appropriately in this way, officers will report back to the Committee to seek approval for alternative project spend that would enable the contributions to be spent on time.

39. See paragraph 3.9, especially points (b) and (c).

40. See paragraph B3 in Appendix B.

Overview of S106 funding

Updated: 11 March 2019

This note sets out how the Council uses S106 contributions A (payments from developers or property owners) to mitigate the impact of developmentsB. Every ward in the city benefits from a range of local S106-funded projects, but changes, in 2015, to the rules governing S106 funding use means that its availability for further local projects is limited. 1. What are S106 contributions for?

a. New housing and other development leads to more demands on local facilities (e.g., play areas, open spaces, community meeting spaces, sports centres, playing pitches and changing rooms). Where this is not addressed through new on-site provision, the Council asks developers (wherever possible) to pay off-site S106 contributions, for new/improved off-site facilities in CambridgeC.

b. All S106 contributions have to be used in line with their intended purposes, as set out in legally-binding S106 agreements and Council policy. Official regulations also set three tests that councils must apply to ensure that S106 contributions are: • necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; • directly related to the development; and • fair and reasonable in scale and kind.

2. How have the rules governing the use of S106 funding changed?

New regulations, which came into effect in April 2015, now require councils to confine themselves to securing specific contributions for particular projects to mitigate the impact of the developmentD. a. New developments of 10 or fewer homes are now exempt from S106 contributions. b. The Council no longer seeks S106 contributions for public art but, instead, aims to

secure on-site public art in appropriate cases, through planning conditions. 3. What does this mean for the S106 funding collected by the City Council?

The Council is managing two different streams of S106 funding: a. specific S106 contributions agreed for particular projects; and b. generic S106 funding for broad types of infrastructure within the city of Cambridge,

which the Council secured in S106 agreements before 6 April 2015E.

Table 1 sets out the key differences between generic and specific S106 contributions. See the Appendix for a summary of the ‘target lists’ used as a starting point for negotiating specific contributions. Section 4 outlines the generic funding round process.

A. This refers to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

B. The Council adopted its new Local Plan in October 2018. Once the Government confirms its future approach to S106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy, the Council will then set out its next steps and update its Planning Obligations Strategy.

C. Generic S106 funds cannot be used on projects outside the city’s boundary.

D. In autumn 2018, the Government announced its intention to ease the requirements – confirmation of the details (and when these will come into effect) is still awaited.

E. Whilst no more generic contributions have been agreed since April 2015, the Council has collected such contributions agreed before then which have become payable.

Cambridge City Council: Overview of S106 funding Visit our S106 web pages (www.cambridge.gov.uk/s106)

11 March 2019 Page 2

Table 1: Key differences between generic and specific S106 contributions

Generic contributions Specific contributions

For providing or improving (or giving better access to) a broad infrastructure type (see Table 2).

For a specific off-site purpose (nearby), to mitigate the impact of the development.

Could be collected as a standard tariff from relevant developments (incl. minor developments before December 2014). Contribution types were set out in Planning Obligations Strategy 2010.

Negotiated on a case-by-case basis (now, only from major developments). Have to be evidence-based. The Council has ‘target lists’ of play areas, open spaces, community facilities, outdoor sports and indoor sports (where mitigations would be particularly needed) as a starting point for negotiationsF (see Appendix).

No new generic ones longer collected since April 2015. Funds are therefore running down.

The basis for all contributions agreed since April 2015 (and some before then, especially for major growth sites).

Decisions on how to spend them on relevant projects can be made in due course (once paid) via generic S106 funding rounds.

Following negotiations within a limited time period, their purpose has to be agreed up-front (normally) by the Planning Committee, as part of the planning application approval process.

Have to be used on relevant projects that help to mitigate the impact of those developments.

Have to be used for purposes specified. No more than five contributions can be agreed for any specific projectG.

Table 2: Examples of projects funded from different generic S106 contribution types

Type: Projects that can mitigate the impact of development include:

a. Informal open spacesH

For parks/open spaces: paths, signs, lighting, landscaping, fencing, trees/ shrubs, drainage, habitat creation, skate parks, benches, bins, noticeboard. Usually Council-owned/managed.

b. Provision for children and teenagers

New/improved play areas or more/better equipment for existing play areas, plus safety surfacing under equipment. Usually Council-owned/managed.

c. Public art New & original, high quality public art, which is accessible to the public, involves an artist, engages the community and has a lasting legacy.

d. Public realm Improvements to streetscape, such as paving, seating, tree-planting on streets and better access for people with disabilities.

e. Community facilities

Improvements to community halls and meeting rooms and/or upgrades to their kitchens, toilets, storage and furniture/equipment.

f. Outdoor sports

Tennis courts, basketball and multi-use games areas, outdoor ‘fit kit’, sports pavilions/changing rooms for outdoor sport, sports equipment.

g. Indoor sports

Indoor gyms, changing rooms for indoor sports and indoor sports equipment.

F. As set out in scrutiny committee reports in March and June 2016.

G. This ‘pooling constraint’ is one aspect of the current official regulations under review.

H. Informal open space S106 funds are sometimes used for landscaping within play areas (say, for fencing, gates and surfacing beyond the immediate vicinity of play equipment).

Cambridge City Council: Overview of S106 funding Visit our S106 web pages (www.cambridge.gov.uk/s106)

11 March 2019 Page 3

4. How does the generic S106 funding round process work?

In those parts of the city where generic S106 funding still exists, it has been possible to decide how this should be used via annual S106 funding rounds.

a. Proposals related to particular contribution types are invited for improving council-owned amenities (e.g., play areas and open spaces). Grant applications are also sometimes invited from community groups and sports clubs looking to improve their facilities and make them available for wider community useI.

b. The proposals and grant applications are assessed against clear selection criteriaJ. In short, these highlight the need for projects to be: • eligible for S106 funding (i.e., within the city of Cambridge and not for repairs

and maintenance, like-for-like replacements or running costs); • affordable within the S106 funding available; • an effective use of resources (e.g., reflecting priorities in Council strategies); • providing additional benefit; • accessible, in line with Council grants and equalities policies; • realistic, achievable and ready to be considered; and • financially viable, with a robust business case and/or management plans.

c. Decisions about the use of funding under most generic S106 contribution typesK are made by executive councillors (following consideration by scrutiny committees) and are subject to business case approvalL.

5. Which S106 contributions are used to fund which projects?

Generic S106 contributions are managed carefully to ensure that they are used for their intended purposes, in timely wayM, and on projects that are related to the developments from which they arise.

a. Local projects tend to be funded from S106 contributions arising from developments in the same ward and/or nearby ones in neighbouring wards.

b. Strategic projectsN located in a particular area of the city tend to be funded from S106 contributions arising from major developments in the same area and/or those from neighbouring areas which will also benefit from the project.

I. Grants are subject to community use agreements (normally binding for 11-12 years)

requiring the facilities to be available, outside the group’s own usage, to all sections of the community.

J. The selection criteria for public art are different (albeit based on similar principles), reflecting key points from the Public Art Supplementary Planning Document.

K. Decisions about the use of generic S106 contributions for play areas and open spaces have previously been made by area committees. The arrangements for the 2019 funding round will be reviewed in a scrutiny committee report in March 2019.

L. For projects over £15,000, programme boards (council officers) check that the proposed project delivery arrangements meet necessary requirements and are realistic and achievable.

M. S106 funds are used within expiry dates set by S106 agreements. Where none are stipulated, the Council aims to use contributions within 10 years of receipt (or sooner).

N. These help to mitigate the impact of development in more than one area of the city (given the scale of the project and/or the proximity of the project to an area boundary).

Cambridge City Council: Overview of S106 funding (11 March 2019) Visit our S106 web pages (www.cambridge.gov.uk/s106) Page 4

Summary of ‘target lists’ (2016) as a starting point to identify possible specific contributions in S106 negotiations Notes: [a] Based on evidence in Council audits & strategies; reported to Environment Scrutiny Committee in March & June 2016 and agreed by relevant executive councillors. [b] Some facilities may help to mitigate developments beyond the ward (e.g., some indoor & outdoor sports facilities can have an area or city-wide benefit). [c] Being on a ‘target list’ does not necessarily mean that specific contributions will be secured – it depends (in part) on the nature & location of major developments that arise. [d] Officers may identify other projects to mitigate the impact of proposed developments. [e] Specific contributions for facilities owned/managed by other organisations will be subject to community use agreements. [f] Specific contributions that are received but could not be used would need to be returned to the developer. [g] Pooling constraints currently apply to the number of specific contributions that can be collected for any single project.

Ward Play areas at: Open spaces at: Community facilities at: Indoor sports at: Outdoor sports at:

Abbey (East Area)

Ditton Fields, Dudley Road, Jack Warren Green, Peverel Road, Stourbridge Common

Barnwell East LNR, Barnwell West LNR), Coldham’s Common, Stourbridge Common, Thorpe Way

No city council-owned or managed community facilities here. May identify other facilities to mitigate particular developments

Kelsey Kerridge Sports Centre (multiple projects for new mobile spectator seating and conversion of Fenner’s Gallery)

Coldham’s Common

Arbury (North Area)

Alexandra Gardens, St Albans Rec Ground

Alexandra Gardens, St Albans Rec Ground

The Meadows Community Centre, Kingsway community room None highlighted via

indoor sports strategy. May be mitigated by other projects, including those elsewhere in area or city.

St Alban’s Rec Ground (improving junior pitches)

Castle (West/Central Area)

None highlighted via play area audit, but others may be identified to mitigate particular developments.

None highlighted via open space audit. Others may be identified to mitigate particular developments.


None highlighted via playing pitch strategy. May be mitigated by other projects, including those elsewhere in area or city. Cherry

Hinton (South Area)

Tenby Close Cherry Hinton Hall, Cherry Hinton Rec Ground

Cherry Hinton Library, Cherry Hinton Village Centre

Cherry Hinton Village Centre (community gym facility)

Coleridge (East Area)

Ashbury Close, Lichfield Road, Robert May Close

Coleridge Rec Ground Lichfield Hall, The Junction

None highlighted via indoor sports strategy. May be mitigated by other projects, including those elsewhere in area or city.

Coleridge Rec Ground (additional changing rooms)

East Chesterton (North Area)

Chesterton Rec, Green End Road, Scotland Road

Causeway Park, Vie site (off St Andrew’s Road)

Brown’s Field Youth & Community Centre

None highlighted via playing pitch strategy. May be mitigated by other projects, including those elsewhere in area or city.

Cambridge City Council: Overview of S106 funding (11 March 2019) Visit our S106 web pages (www.cambridge.gov.uk/s106) Page 5

Ward Play areas at: Open spaces at: Community facilities at: Indoor sports at: Outdoor sports at:

King’s Hedges (North Area)


Arbury Town Park, King’s Hedges Rec Ground

Buchan Street Neighbourhood Centre, Arbury Community Centre, 37 Lawrence Way, Nun’s Way Pavilion

North Cambridge Academy (new sports hall floor and indoor court)

North Cambridge Academy (multiple projects for storage and cricket net improvements)

Market (West/Central Area)

Christ’s Pieces Christ’s Pieces, Jesus Green, Midsummer Common, Parker’s Piece No city council-owned or

managed community facilities here. May identify other facilities to mitigate particular developments


Parker’s Piece (second cricket square for community club cricket use)

Newnham (West/Central Area)


Lammas Land, Paradise LNR, Penarth Place, Queen’s Green, Sheep’s Green

None highlighted via playing pitch strategy. May be mitigated by other projects, including those elsewhere in area or city.

Petersfield (East Area)

Flower St, Petersfield, Shenstone St, Sleaford St, St Matthew’s Piece

Petersfield Bath House community room, Cherry Trees Day Centre

Queen Edith’s (South Area)

Gunhild Close, Holbrook Road, Nightingale Ave Rec Ground

Nightingale Avenue Rec Ground


Netherhall School & Sixth Form (new floor for sports hall)

Netherhall School & Sixth Form (floodlit, grass training area)

Romsey (East Area)

Brooks Road Romsey Rec Ground Ross Street Community Centre


Romsey Rec Ground (improving junior pitches)

Trumpington (South Area)

None highlighted via play area audit, but others may be identified to mitigate particular developments

Accordia site (off Brooklands Ave), Coe Fen, Trumpington Rec Ground

Hanover Court community room, Trumpington Pavilion

Trumpington Rec Ground (pitch improvements)

West Chesterton (North Area)

Woodhead Drive None highlighted via open space audit. Others may be identified to mitigate particular developments


Chesterton Community College (multiple projects for pitch, storage and cricket net improvements)

section 106 payments, expenditure and ... - cambridge.gov.uk · for south cambridgeshire dc -...

Documents