Issue - meetings

There were no public questions.

 

Members of the public asked the following questions, as set out below.

 

Question 1:

      i.         Clientelism and patronage networks extending between purportedly independent public authorities had the potential to allow public officials to escape institutional and legal restrictions and to misuse state powers for improper purposes. This could have catastrophic consequences for public confidence in the integrity of our democratic institutions.

    ii.         Over the past several years, serious concerns have been raised about the improper involvement of elected officials in operational policing matters in Cambridgeshire. When the Police and Crime Commissioner was unwilling to address this issue, concerns were raised by members of the Police and Crime Panel.

   iii.         Rather than addressing those concerns, the concerned panel members were simply purged from the panel using the system of patronage networks operated by local authorities and local political parties.

  iv.         Does the Mayor of Cambridge have confidence that the majority political group at this council is committed to ensuring that the democratic process in Cambridgeshire is not subject to improper police interference, and if so, can the Mayor of Cambridge please explain why this council’s representative on the Police and Crime Panel has been unwilling to meet with representatives of my organisation to discuss this important issue?

 

The Leader said the following:

        i.       Encouraged the public speaker, if they had evidence to substantiate their claims to report this to the appropriate authorities in relation to the matter raised. Noted that the City Council’s representative on the Police and Crime Panel had already advised how this could be done.

 

The speaker made the following supplementary points:

        i.       Noted following publication of the list of public questions for the Council meeting, that the College of Policing released information about the operational issues which had been raised and that the Police and Crime Panel could consider this at a future public meeting.

 

The Leader made the following supplementary points:

        i.       Would liaise with the City Council’s representative on the Police and Crime Panel about the information which had been released by the College of Policing as they may not be aware of it.

 

Question 2:

      i.         Residents who get Housing Benefit paid by Cambridge City Council were concerned that their service charges (the mandatory fee levied by the housing association or management company) were artificially high or inflated beyond a reasonable amount for services provided.

    ii.         Public money was used to pay these charges when the resident is entitled to housing benefit. Does the Council know how much public money went towards service charges in 2023/24 and does the Council scrutinise service charges and ensure they are legitimate?

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources said the following:

        i.       It wasn’t possible to readily identify how much public money was being spent on service charges as some charges were included within eligible rent figures and others were split into relevant service charges.

      ii.        The City Council made payments for eligible service charges in accordance with Regulations.

    iii.        Many service charges the Council had determined as being eligible and reasonable were fully covered by the Housing Benefit subsidy from the Department of Work and Pensions, which did not impact on the Council’s finances.

    iv.       Eligible service charges were scrutinised by experienced Officers, both when new a setting started and when rents were annually reviewed.

      v.       There were different rules for charitable landlords and temporary accommodation tenancies.

 

The speaker made the following supplementary points:

        i.       During their campaigning work, queried how charges could be justified, particularly where there were no additional needs or requirements. This affected people who wanted to move out of larger properties into over 55 years accommodation.

      ii.        Questioned how charges were approved and paid. 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources said the following in response to the supplementary statement:

        i.       New settings were scrutinised to ensure that service charges were in accordance with Regulations and were eligible and reasonable. Landlords were required to demonstrate this before payment could be made.

      ii.        Service charges were reviewed when annual increases were notified to the council.

    iii.        Providers had to provide the following:

a.    they were applying the subscribed increase in the core rent;

b.    the service charge looked reasonable both in percentage terms and expenses being covered;

c.    the service charge remained eligible for housing benefit.

Iv. Was happy to speak further with the public speaker outside of the meeting.

 

Question 3:

      i.         Was the closure of the public toilets a forgone conclusion?

    ii.         Have the Council thought of the impact on disabled members of the public. The impact on disabled people not having access to public toilets is monumental. Not all shops/cafes were accommodating and there's massive anxiety and pressure to purchase goods just to use the toilet.

   iii.         Please consider these before a decision is made to close vital amenities which could potentially deter disabled people from coming into the city.

 

The Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services responded with the following:

        i.       Recognised the need for accessible facilities and remained committed to ensuring that disabled individuals were not disproportionately affected.

      ii.        Closures were proposed where there was consistent low use of the facilities. This ensured that high demand facilities remained open and well maintained. 

    iii.        A recent £1.1 million capital investment had improved accessibility and modernised high use sites.

    iv.       Under the proposals the Council would have 10 Council operated public toilets sites, with changing places facilities at the Clay Farm Centre and the Meadows Community Centre.

      v.       Noted other toilet facilities within the city centre.

    vi.       Cambridge had better public toilet provision compared with other comparable cities including Norwich and Oxford.

  vii.        Data from ‘toiletmap.org.uk’ indicated that the city had 52 public toilets, with 12 designated as accessible for disabled users.

 viii.        Welcomed feedback as decisions were made regarding public amenities.

 

The speaker made the following supplementary points:

        i.       Noted that a consultation had taken place but asked why the Council had disregarded its own survey which said that 61% of the respondents opposed the closure of public toilets.

      ii.        As part of the consultation, residents were asked to rank which public toilets were used the most.

    iii.        Residents were not given the choice regarding which toilets should remain open.

    iv.       Noted reference to other public toilets in the city but commented that the toilets in the Grafton Centre were due to close for refurbishment.

      v.       Noted that not all toilets had accessible parameters so they could be used by disabled people.

 

The Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services responded to the supplementary points:

        i.       Noted 42.9% of respondents to the consultation opposed the closure of under-used toilets.

      ii.        Noted investment by the council in toilet facilities including: £540,000 for Silver Street toilets, £492,000 for upgrades at Coleridge Recreation Ground, Chesterton Recreation Ground, Jesus Green, Christ Pieces and Cherry Hinton Hall. £100,000 was dedicated for installing changing places facilities at Christ Pieces and Cherry Hinton Hall.  

    iii.        Priority was to ensure high-quality, well used toilets remained open and accessible, while aligning with public feedback in accordance with responsible budget management.

 

Question 4:

      i.         Operational Staff working in Streets and Open Spaces already have to regularly clear up human faeces and wash down urine from the market square, nearby alley-ways and other areas to keep the city healthy and safe for residents.

    ii.         Unison would like to know how the reduction of approximately 13% fewer staff working in the operational teams of Streets and Open Spaces, which is represented in this budget proposal, would be able to cope with the results of removal of the 3 public toilets at Gonville Place, Quayside and Midsummer Common, because Unison predict that this decision will lead to further use of our streets and open spaces as toilets?

 

The Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services responded:

        i.       There was no evidence that removing three under used toilets would result in the misuse of public spaces.

      ii.        Public toilets needed to be well placed and in good condition for people to feel able to use them.

    iii.        The Council had invested £1.1 million in public toilet infrastructure recently.

    iv.       The Council managed more public toilets than other councils of a similar size.

      v.       The Council was exploring opportunities to see whether toilet facilities could be passed on to other organisations to run.

    vi.       The Civic Quarter project would consider if toilets could be made more accessible in the Guildhall.

  vii.        The rapid response function in the city centre would continue, this was supported by Cambridge Bid funding to maintain public health and cleanliness.

 viii.        People with street-based lifestyles had access to toilets and showers at Winter Comfort and The Haven.

    ix.       68% of respondents to the Budget Setting Report consultation supported a reduction in the frequency of mowing and leaf collection in some areas to save on maintenance costs and promote biodiversity. 

 

The speaker made the following supplementary points:

        i.       Operational staff who maintained open spaces began work at 6am and travelled throughout the city. They weren’t the only people who started work early other examples included bus drivers, delivery drivers and taxi drivers who all needed access to toilet facilities.

      ii.        If staff were working at Parkers Piece or Midsummer Common either walking or driving to toilet facilities could easily take 20 minutes out of their work schedule.

    iii.        During the refurbishment of Jesus Green toilets, even fewer options would be available for those working in the city’s parks.

    iv.       The Equalities Impact Assessment did not consider the needs of the Council staff or other people who shared these characteristics.

      v.       Was disappointed that frontline staff were being treated differently to those who were office based and were making decisions to reduce staffing.

    vi.       Was aware that the Council needed to agree a balanced budget but believed there was more than one way of doing that. Could not believe that the Council couldn’t afford to keep toilets open. Asked the Council to reconsider its position on toilet closures.    

 

The Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services responded:

        i.       A lot of thought had gone into the proposal.

      ii.        The city had a network of around 50 publicly accessible toilets, the majority of which were free to use.

    iii.        Had historically spent more per capita on public toilets than any other District Council in England.

    iv.       Toilet use would be kept under review as part of the cleaning and maintenance program.

      v.       The data driven approach ensured that resources were directed to where they were most needed.   

    vi.       Maintenance and Rapid Response Teams remained in place to address challenges where they emerged.

  vii.        Did not expect any impact on operational staff. Toilets in Mandela House were available instead of the toilets at Gonville Place. Toilets were available at Jesus Green instead of Midsummer Common.