Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Sarris; Councillor Abbott attended as an alternate.

Members are asked to declare at this stage any interests that they may have in an item shown on this agenda. If any member of the Committee is unsure whether or not they should declare an interest on a particular matter, they should seek advice from the Monitoring Officer before the meeting. 

No declarations of interest were made.

To confirm the minutes of the meetings held on 20 March and 25 May 2017.

The minutes of the meetings held on 20 March and 25 May were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Mr Martin Lucas-Smith spoke on item 17/28/SR, full details can be found at the head of this item.

Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chair used her discretion to alter the order of the agenda items. However, for ease of the reader, these minutes will follow the order of the agenda.

 

Matter for Decision

The report presented a summary of actual income and expenditure compared to the final budget for 2016/17 (outturn position). The report gave an overview of the revenue and capital budget variances with explanations and outlined specific requests to carry forward funding available from budget underspends into 2017/18.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources:

     i.        Agreed to carry forward requests totalling £222,700 revenue funding from 2016/17 to 2017/18, as detailed in Appendix C.

    ii.        Agreed to carry forward requests of £24,045k capital resources from 2016/17 to 2017/18 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

     i.        Sought clarification regarding the £6 million overspend in the general fund capital summary.

    ii.        Queried how the rephasing requests of £31,488k map through to the overall figures for the capital budget across all portfolios.

 

The Head of Finance said the following in response to Members’ questions:

     i.        The general fund property acquisition for the housing company outlined the breakdown of figures. The capital outturn of £8.5 million was composed of two parts. The first funded the development of housing directly, the second part provided a loan to the housing company. The overspend had been offset by a capital receipt equal to the value of the build spend incurred by the Council.

    ii.        Confirmed that other reports which had gone to scrutiny committees in different portfolios would substantiate the rephrasing request figures, for example housing made a large contribution to this.

 

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

Matter for Decision

The report presented a summary of actual income and expenditure compared to the final budget for 2016/17 (outturn position). The report outlined the revenue and capital budget variances with explanations, as reported to individual Executive Councillors and Scrutiny Committee specific requests to carry forward funding available from budget underspends into 2017/18.

 

The outturn report presented in this Committee cycle reflected the current Executive Portfolios (which may have changed since the budgets were originally approved, before any changes in Portfolio responsibilities). Therefore members of all committees had been asked to consider proposals to carry forward budgets and make their views known to the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources, for consideration at Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee prior to his recommendations to Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources:

     i.        Agreed to seek Council approval for carry forward requests totalling £914,330 revenue funding from 2016/17 to 2017/18, as detailed in Appendix C

    ii.        Agreed to seek Council approval for carry forward requests of £34,384k (including £20,000k for PR038 Investment in Commercial Property Portfolio and £2,896k relating to the Housing Capital Investment Plan) of capital resources from 2016/17 to 2017/18 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D - Overview.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Matter for Decision

The Council was required by regulations issued under the Local Government Act 2003, to produce an annual treasury report reviewing treasury management activities and the actual prudential and treasury indicators for each financial year.

 

This report met the requirements of both the CIPFA Code of

Practice on Treasury Management (the Code) and the CIPFA

Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities (the Prudential Code) in respect of 2016/17.

 

In line with the Code of Practice, all treasury management reports had to be presented to both Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee and to full Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources:

     i.        Recommended the report to Council inclusive of the Council’s actual Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2016/17.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

Councillor Cantrill commented that the approach to risk appeared outdated and asked whether a different approach might be taken in the future.

 

The Head of Finance confirmed that the council took a conservative approach to risk. As there was no indication that there would be any change to the investment strategy, the council was not undertaking any borrowing and therefore the risk was very low.

 

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

The appendix to the report contains exempt information during which the public is likely to be excluded from the meeting subject to determination by the Scrutiny Committee following consideration of a public interest test. This exclusion would be made under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972

Matter for Decision

The report presented the outcomes of the design and procurement scheme at Mandela House for the Office Accommodation Strategy. It outlined the capital funding requirements of the scheme and the proposals for award of contract. The additional funding requirements related to essential maintenance requirements at Mandela House.

 

It was essential to progress the Mandela House project in order to meet the timescales to vacate Hobson House by 31 March 2018.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources:

     i.        Approved the scope of the refurbishment schemes, subject to approval of Capital Funding by Council, for Mandela House.

    ii.        Recommended to Council the additional capital funding for the scheme which would be funded from reserves.

   iii.        Subject to the agreed funding from Council approved the award of Contract for Mandela House and furniture as described in the exempt appendix 1.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Estates.

 

The Committee made the following comment in response to the report:

     i.        Commented that the amount of money being invested into Mandela House queried whether it was the intention for it to be used by the council for a long time. Asked what the officer view was on the length of time that they were likely to be based there.

 

The Head of Estates and Facilities said the following in response to Members’ questions:

     i.        The work carried out on Mandela House would have a minimum life span of ten years. There was no guarantee that the council would continue to base itself at Mandela for ten years but the improvements gave the council time to make future decisions. The refurbishment also added value to the building in the event that a decision to sell or let was made.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor stated that the ruling group was committed to retaining the Customer Service Centre at a city centre location which Mandela House provided especially as it is close to the bus interchange area, and approved the recommendation.

 

 

Matter for Decision

In December 2015, the Council appointed an external contractor

(Bouygues Group PLC) to identify energy efficiency projects within the Council’s buildings and estate. Following extensive investigations, Bouygues have identified a package of proposed measures to significantly reduce energy consumption and carbon emissions from the Guildhall and deliver ongoing financial savings for the Council.

 

The report outlined the proposed measures. The budget for these works was approved at Council on 23 February 2017 as part of the Budget Setting Report for 2017/18. As it was anticipated that the value of these capital works would exceed £300,000, delegated approval was sought for the Strategic Director to award a contract for the works up to the value agreed at Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources:

     i.        Gave delegated approval for the Strategic Director to award a contract for energy efficiency works, renewable energy works and associated roofing works at the Guildhall up to the value agreed in the Budget Setting Report at Council on 23 February 2017.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Asset Manager.

 

The Committee made the following comment in response to the report:

     i.        In welcoming the proposals commented that modernising systems should reduce the council’s carbon footprint.

    ii.        Asked if officers had a view on how these works could be impacted by future changes created by the Office Accommodation Strategy.

 

The Asset Manager said that the office accommodation work was ongoing but there was no indication that this would have a detrimental impact on the energy efficiency works.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Matter for Decision

This report considered the statutory consultation exercise conducted by the Council during October and November, 2016 (stage 1), and April, 2017 (stage 2), in relation to the proposal to introduce a Public Spaces Protection Order (‘PSPO’) in respect of dog control (including dog fouling, dog exclusion and dogs on leads requirements) within Cambridge. As a result of the responses to consultation and main substantive issues raised, a number of changes to the text of the draft PSPO as consulted upon were proposed.

 

The reason for putting forward the PSPO was to address the detrimental effect on the quality of life of those in the locality caused by the irresponsible behaviour of a small minority of dog owners and to set out a clear standard of behaviour to which all dog owners are required to adhere.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation:

     i.        Approved the proposed PSPO, as set out in Appendix A.

    ii.        Approved the area of the PSPO, as indicated in the maps at Appendix B.

   iii.        Delegated to officers’ the authority to install signage appropriate to the PSPO.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Operational Manager, Community Engagement and Enforcement.

 

This item was not requested for pre-scrutiny.

 

Matter for Decision

The report provided an annual report on progress made implementing the objectives set out in the Corporate Plan 2016-19.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation:

     i.        Noted the annual report and agreed to its publication on the City Council website.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from Head of Corporate Strategy.

 

This item was not requested for pre-scrutiny.

 

Matter for Decision

The report gave a summary of actual income and expenditure compared to the final budget for 2016/17 (outturn position). The report outlined the revenue and capital budget variances with explanations. It outlined specific requests to carry forward funding available from budget underspends into 2017/18.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation:

     i.        Agreed to carry forward requests totalling £561,600 revenue funding from 2016/17 to 2017/18, as detailed in Appendix C

    ii.        Agreed to carry forward requests of £60k capital resources from 2016/17 to 2017/18 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

 

Matter for Decision

The report provided information regarding proposals for a new, transformed Planning Service between Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council. Approval of the Business Case was sought in line with the principles which were approved by the Leader following scrutiny in March 2017.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation:

     i.        Approved the Business Case for the new Planning Service attached was approved (see Appendix 1).

    ii.        South Cambridgeshire District Council was agreed to be the Employing Authority for this shared service.

   iii.        Agreed that delegated authority was to be given to the Director of Planning and Economic Development to deliver the phases of the proposal as set out in the Business Case.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Director of Planning and Economic Development.

 

Public Question

A member of the public asked a question as set out below.

 

1.   Martin Lucas-Smith, Liaison Officer at Cambridge Cycling Campaign, raised the following points:

     i.        Wanted assurance that issues that were distinctive to Cambridge would remain a priority in the Shared Service.

   ii.        Asked if Planning Officers would still be based at the Guildhall, access to them was much easier and more preferable than travelling to Cambourne.

  iii.        Asked if the issues with the online planning software IDOX could be resolved?

 

The Director of Planning and Economic Development responded:

     i.        The objective of the Shared Service was to work with communities and have a clearer cross section of groups to ensure the needs of local areas were addressed.

    ii.        Confirmed that there were no plans for the planning team to vacate the Guildhall.

   iii.        ICT solutions were a priority. The Corporate Business Processing Manager was in the process of engaging with officers on site to identify key issues.

  iv.         A strong core planning team who knew the local area was essential, becoming less reliant on agency staff and assuming a sense of place.

 

Martin Lucas-Smith gave the following response:

 

     i.        Suggested that a workshop could be useful to provide feedback on some of the main IT issues.

 

Councillor Bick sought clarification on the following points:

       i.        Why South Cambridgeshire District Council would be the employing authority. Across the spectrum of shared services the City Council employed approximately 14.15% of staff which was the lowest out of all the corresponding authorities. He affirmed that the split did not seem balanced and the report failed to present a reason why this approach had been decided.

     ii.        Asked about what the disruption that the report’s joint planning services arrangements referred to in the report.

 

The Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation responded:

         i.        Confirmed that the Director of Planning and Economic Development reported to both councils so there was no imbalance.

       ii.        The approach to governance of the service was subject to review. The idea of joint governance had been suggested. Improvements needed to be made but nothing could be confirmed at present.

      iii.        There was no threat of offshoring services. A single set of terms and conditions would be agreed in time. Where staff were transferred their terms and conditions would be protected. The recruitment and retention of high quality staff was paramount to the initiative.

     iv.        Planning staff, including staff dealing with Cambridge applications, would continue to be based in Cambridge, and applicants, residents and others needing to discuss issues would be able to meet in Cambridge too, just like now.

       v.        In the future it was likely that more services would be shared so there would be future opportunities for the City Council to be the employing authority.

     vi.        Minimising disruption during the transition was a key priority, the way to ensure certainty from the outset was to roll out the changes in stages.

 

Councillor Bick requested that the recommendations highlighted in the Officer’s report be voted on and recorded separately. The Chair granted this request:

 

The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 to endorse recommendations i and iii.

 

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 2 to endorse recommendations ii.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

Matter for Decision

The report provided a summary of the performance for the 3C Shared Services during 2016/17. The scope included Legal, Building Control and ICT. The principle of producing an annual report for the 3 way shared services was agreed by the Leader during scrutiny in July 2015.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation:

     i.        Noted the content of this report

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Interim Strategic Director.

 

The Committee made the following comment in response to the report:

     i.        Asked if it likely that the target of 15% savings would be achieved in the future?

 

The Interim Strategic Director and Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation said the following in response to the Members’ question:

     i.        Confirmed that among the shared services, legal was expected to achieve 15% savings. ICT had made staff and system savings, these would align in the future in conjunction with the digital strategy but at present the future percentage was unclear. Staffing costs had contributed to the low level of savings for building control, however a new Head of Service had just started and recruitment of further permanent staff was a continued priority.

    ii.        Suggested that the business plans for each service could be brought forward for scrutiny.

 

The Executive Councillor noted the content of the report.

 

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update on the activities of the Combined Authority since the last meeting of Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee in March 2017.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation:

     i.        Agreed to report the contents of this report to the scrutiny committee.

    ii.        Provided a verbal update at the meeting on issues considered at the 28 June meeting of the Combined Authority.

   iii.        Agreed to provide informal briefings if a Group Leader or a Combined Authority Overview and Scrutiny representative requested this using the process set out in paragraph 7.6.

  iv.        If a Group Leader or a Combined Authority Overview and Scrutiny representative wishes an informal briefing following a decision of the Combined Authority Overview and Scrutiny Committee to call-in a decision of the Combined Authority, Democratic Services will follow the process as described section 7.6 of the Officers report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Councillors requested a change to recommendation 2.2. Councillor Cantrill formally proposed to amend the following recommendation from the Officer’s report (amendments shown as bold and struck through text):

iii Agreed to provide informal briefings if a Group Leader or a Combined Authority Overview and Scrutiny representative with group leaders and Combined Authority Overview and Scrutiny representatives, if requested this using the process set out in paragraph 7.6.

 

Councillor Cantrill formally proposed an additional point under section 7.6 of the officer’s report (addition shown in bold):

 

iv. If a Group Leader or a Combined Authority Overview and Scrutiny representative wishes an informal briefing following a decision of the Combined Authority Overview and Scrutiny Committee to call-in a decision of the Combined Authority, Democratic Services will follow the process as described section 7.6 of the Officers report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Chief Executive.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

     i.        Commented that the formal process of scrutiny outlined in section 7.6 was not set up for pre-scrutiny. 

    ii.        Recognised the need to be flexible with their approach to scrutiny but suggested that some authorised record of the meeting was required, perhaps in the form of minutes.

   iii.        Asked about the status of the 100 day plan and whether the Combined Authority had any input or whether it was produced by the Mayor alone?

  iv.        Asked if there was a chance that the £70 million that the government promised to fund housing in Cambridge could be side-lined?

 

The Chief Executive and Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation said the following in response to Members’ questions:

     i.        Agreed that an appropriate method of scrutiny needed to be assessed in order for it to match the time and pace of the Combined Authority.

    ii.        Agreed in principle that a formal record would be beneficial where a scrutiny meeting was held in response to a Combined Authority item being called in by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

   iii.        The 100 day plan was created by the Mayor alone. It should be viewed in conjunction with the Combined Authority’s Forward Plan.

  iv.        Confirmed that the £70 million would not be side-lined.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations as amended.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations as amended.

 

Matter for Decision

The Committee received a report from the Development Manager, City Centre Management Markets and Street Trading on the Cambridge Business Improvement District (BID) Second Term Ballot. The BID Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for Visit Cambridge and Beyond also attended.

 

Cambridge BID intended to seek a second five year term, by way of a ballot of businesses within the geographical area it proposed to cover, in the autumn of 2017. The second term would run from 1st April, 2018, to 31st March, 2023. The City Council was a nondomestic ratepayer in respect of a number of properties within the BID area and, as such, would be entitled to a number of votes in relation to these properties.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation

 

     i.        Agreed to exercise the City Council’s voting entitlement in the forthcoming Cambridge BID second term ballot.

    ii.        Supported, in principle, Cambridge BID in the second term ballot, in view of their performance in the successful delivery of services against the term one proposal; and the value for money Cambridge BID provided the City Council, balancing their levy contribution against expenditure the Council might otherwise be expected to commit to.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Development Manager, City Centre Management Markets and Street Trading on the Cambridge Business Improvement District (BID). The BID Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for Visit Cambridge and Beyond also attended.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

     i.        Councillor Bick sought clarification regarding whether the purpose of this item was to give authorisation for a ballot to be held or whether it was the last opportunity for the committee to decide how they would eventually vote.

    ii.        Queried whether authority needed to be in the form of a committee report and whether another debate before casting the vote was required. Suggested that the Leader could assume authority if the Committee agreed. Alternatively, the business plan could go to the Chair and Spokes in early October before the Leader made the casting vote.

   iii.        Asked where Mill Road fits in to the debate after the issues that had arisen during the initial ballot five years ago.

  iv.        Commented that feedback had been received from residents regarding the BID’s Ambassadors. Asked how they evaluated the role and contribution that the Ambassadors made.

   v.        Requested more detail on the unified visitor experience.

  vi.        Praised the BID’s progress and outward vision. Agreed it had been a good investment for the city.

 

The Development Manager, City Centre Management Markets and Street Trading, BID Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for Visit Cambridge and Beyond said the following in response to Members’ questions:

     i.        Confirmed that the purpose of this item was to ensure the City Council as a key stakeholder would support to the BID to hold a ballot and delegate authority to the Leader to cast the City Council’s vote.

    ii.        Confirmed that the BID had tried to support Mill Road, however, as the area had such a variety of shops and businesses it had been difficult to get them to contribute voluntarily, which would be required.

   iii.        The Ambassadors made a crucial contribution to the overall project. They played a key customer facing role whilst reporting a variety of information back in real time. Evaluation figures could be found in the annual report.

  iv.        The unified visitor experience would be developed during the second term by working collaboratively with Visit Cambridge. It aimed to give visitors a more interactive experience with access to information via apps and online material such as guides, maps and a visit cam, helping to navigate the city better.

   v.        Confirmed that the business plan for the second term ballot would be published on 20 September.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update on progress in delivering key actions set out in the Single Equality Scheme (SES) for 2016/17. It also proposed some new actions for delivery during 2017/18.

 

The Council’s SES was originally approved by the Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation at the Strategy and Resources Committee on 13 July 2015. The SES set out how the organisation would challenge discrimination and promote equal opportunity in all aspects of its work over a three year period (2015-2018).

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and transformation

     i.        Noted the progress in delivering equalities actions during 2016/17.

    ii.        Approved the actions proposed in the SES for delivery during

2017/18.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Equality and Anti-Poverty Officer.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

     i.        Thanked officers for their hard work, the report highlighted how many services were being delivered by the council.

    ii.        Queried what impact the equal access programmes had made and what they had been used for?

   iii.        Asked if the Leader shared the national scepticism on the Prevent Strategy?

  iv.        Praised the work with ethnic minority groups, continued engagement had made a noticeable improvement in relations between the communities.

 

The Equality and Anti-Poverty Officer and Executive Councillor for Strategy and Transformation said the following in response to Members’ questions:

   v.        The equal access programmes had given recipients lots of new skills. The future plan was to expand these services and ensure recipients were involved in decision making.

  vi.        At present faith groups did not have a structured community response so undertaking a study to assess the demand for a Council of Faiths and increase involvement was a priority.

 vii.        Confirmed that the Prevent Strategy covered a range of issues not singularly radicalisation. The programme involved representatives from a range of backgrounds and had a positive impact in Cambridge. If a national review of the programme was undertaken the council would happily take part. 

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.