Decision details

(i) An Opposition proposal to amend and update proposals for the Budget 2020/21 in respect of General Fund Revenue and Capital Budgets, Earmarked Reserves and an updated Section 25 report.
(ii) To provide an updated Equality Impact Assessment in respect of any
budget proposals.
(iii) To propose, where necessary, an alternative level of Council Tax to facilitate delivery of any amendment subject to limits set out by the Government.

The purpose of the discussion was to ask questions of the Liberal Democrat Members on their group’s budget amendment.

 

The Labour Members of the Committee and Executive Councillors asked the following questions.  The answers provided by Liberal Democrat Members immediately follow.

 

i.        Reserves were proposed to be reduced – asked by how much and what the purpose was for. 

 

The amendment proposes using a specified amount from reserves for investment in housing, rather than the illustrative amount set aside in the budget setting report. It shows that the council has the ability to generate income from an alternative housing model.

 

ii.             Asked what assurances there were that the amendment had taken account of risks with the economy and Brexit.

 

The amendment proposed would still meet with reserve requirements, the strategy could be phased if required.

 

iii.            Referred to the proposal to buy 40 houses and produce an income of £237,000 and questioned how long it would take to acquire the properties as this would need to be in place by 1 April.

 

Would look to phase the proposal over a period of time and would not want to disturb the Cambridge housing market.

 

iv.           Questioned if thought had been given to the requirement to upgrade the properties.

 

Had taken into account capital expenditure on the properties, this proposal had been presented in the past.

 

B0006 Air Quality - Engine Idling Education Campaign

 

v.             Engine idling had been discussed previously by the committee; her recollection was that the enforcement would cost more than the revenue raised. 

vi.           Asked if there was any evidence that an engine idling campaign had been proven to make a difference.

 

The engine idling budget amendment was not a revenue raising item, it was an educational health campaign.  Councils who had run engine idling campaigns had noticed improvements to air quality.

 

B0014 Civic Beekeeper (grant to local group)

 

vii.          She was aware of bee hives in Cambridge but questioned whether this budget amendment may be delivered better by the private sector. Honey production was a great business. 

 

In relation to the Civic Beekeeper budget amendment, the Council had taken on the biodiversity challenge by declaring a Biodiversity Emergency at Full Council. The wildflower meadows which had been created were welcomed, but this amendment was a further action that the council could take to protect pollinators   

 

B0020 Youth Liaison Officer – remit to include knife crime

 

viii.        Violent crime included knife crime

 

County Lines was a critical area which needed to be looked at more. County lines did lead into violent crime. Proposed to extend the scope of the role to 3 years and knife crime was a component part.

 

B0021 Support for lone parents in / at risk of poverty

 

ix.           Asked if there was a specific project identified and if any discussions with lone parents had taken place.

 

No specific project had been identified. Discussions with lone parents had taken place and free access to childcare was highlighted as an issue.

 

B0013 Enhanced leaf clearance

 

x.             Leaf clearance on public footpaths was the responsibility of the County Council why should the City Council pick this issue up.

 

The public safety aspect of the amendment was clear; was keen for the City Council to take the lead because it was seen by the public as something which had degraded over the years.  Could be replaced with funding from fixed penalty notices.

 

B0016 Reverse cuts to cycle and walking grants (B4541)

 

xi.           Commented that this issue had been picked up earlier in the Budget Setting report discussion and that this grant could possibly be included with other grants so that there was a ‘one stop shop’ for people to contact the council about grants.

 

Expressed concerns that walking / cycling groups could find that the grant funding had already been spent if the grant funding was amalgamated within other grant funding.

 

II0002 Trade Waste Surplus

 

xii    Questioned how the increased surplus from trade waste could be achieved.

 

Wanted businesses to produce less waste, but where they do for the Council’s service to be as commercial as it can. Thought that the target was very achievable as there is already work underway in the service to deliver more.

 

CAP0003 Housing company capital [linked with II0005, RI0004]

 

xii.          Referred to discussions which had taken place on a similar amendment suggested last year. Asked how ‘key workers’ would be defined and asked if affordable housing should be promoted for everyone (and not just key workers).

 

The amendment was proposed as it was felt that key workers were an important segment of society, and which they felt had been neglected by the current administration.

 

xiii.        Referred to a report which had been undertaken by the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) in 2018 which stated that the skills demand in the Cambridge area was for a greater proportion of lower skilled workers.

 

The current MP had referred to a current shortage of teachers.  Without teachers children could not be educated. A report had been undertaken specifically in Cambridge about key workers.

 

xiv.        Referred to housing for single homeless people on town hall lettings and questioned whether there was a ‘need’ to be met for single homeless people.

 

Questioned if the level of need was understood by the Executive Councillor, single people who were homeless could not get private rented accommodation. He was aware of this issue last Friday, the ‘need’ did exist.

 

CAP0012 Succession Tree Planting on Parkers Piece

 

xv.         Noted that this budget amendment proposed tree planting but expressed concern that this was a knee jerk reaction to plant further trees on Parker’s Piece.  The quality of the area was open and flat.  The history of the area should be considered, this was where the rules of football were developed and Parkside School used the area for sports lessons. Believed the area was in or close to a Conservation Area. Planting further trees may damage the character of the area.

 

The description of the amendment was clear that the proposal was only to replace and maintain trees along the perimeter of the area so that it did not impinge on the use of the open space for sports and events.

 

The Conservation Area Plan for Parkers Piece was agreed in 2001 and called for the provision of succession planting.