Agenda and minutes

No apologies received.

Name	Item	Reason
Councillor Baigent	All	Personal: Member of Cambridge Cycle Campaign.

 

Question 1

A question from Estates and Facilities staff regarding the stores.

      i.         It was agreed at committee in July 2023 to look into our in-house stores options for a ‘like for like’ service but that has now changed (with no deliveries).

    ii.         Should this now go back to committee as this would affect council tenants and is not a ‘like for like’ service.

 

The Leader gave the following response.

      i.         Did not believe this item was required to return to Committee.

    ii.         The store's annex to the S&R paper (3rd July 23) deliberately avoided specifying a rigid model or detailed plan, instead taking a broad, flexible approach to outsourcing.

   iii.         This ensured adaptability in supplier selection and delivery methods without committing to a single strategy.

  iv.         The model and tender specification now aligned with industry standards rather than the initially proposed ‘gold-plated’ version while still maintaining a delivery model.

    v.         Deliveries for VOIDs and urgent MSO (Multi Skilled Operative) requirements on-site would be managed in-house.

  vi.         Routine, forecastable, cyclical van stock replacement would be managed at the supplier’s location.

 

Question 2

      i.         Question related to the blogpost at https://cambridgetownowl.com/2025/02/02/the-combined-authority-should-make-developers-co-ordinate-their-employment-and-skills-strategies/

    ii.         Developers of large development sites were required by a range of local and national policies to produce employment and skills plans as part of their applications for planning permission. Cambridge Science Park's 'Fenway' application includes one such strategy published in November 2024.

   iii.         What options do Councils, and the Combined Authority have to bring together developers putting together their own separate strategies to ensure the benefit that residents and communities get from those strategies is greater than the sum of their parts? Including but not limited to:

·               Subsidising courses with existing learning providers.

·               Subsidising the living costs of those retraining who can then go onto work on the sites, especially in fields with chronic skills shortages

·               Contributing towards new/upgraded learning facilities and institutions to provide that training across the city and CPCA area?

 

The Leader responded with the following:

      i.         This was an area of work that was key to achieving tangible benefit for local people from development.

    ii.         As the question highlighted, on several sites in the city, developers had included employment and skills plans for the construction and occupation phases of their developments as part of their planning applications. These plans were developed in discussion with the planning team and local authority economic development leads with expertise in skills and employment who have working relationships with the CPCA and the wider skills system.

   iii.         Officers worked with developers to link them into contacts at the CPCA, skills and training providers, and the community and voluntary sector to enable partnership working to design and deliver employment and skills plans. Through these plans  Council can require and influence things like the mix of employment opportunities on sites, accessibility of jobs by local people (e.g. setting targets for the number of jobs for local people) and employment conditions such as paying the real living wage as well as ensuring developers were working with existing organisations and programmes to help people into work and those in work to upskill.

  iv.         The Council was aiming to strengthen this approach through the Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which was out for consultation until 24 January 2025.

    v.         A policy was also proposed for the Greater Cambridge Local Plan and was currently being worked up into more detail for the Draft Plan stage.

  vi.         Officers were currently working in partnership with the CPCA on a toolkit for developers for employment and skills plans which included clear guidance on what we would expect a plan to include along with routes for approval and monitoring working with the CPCA. Through the development of the new policy Officers were also exploring mechanisms that would allow pooled funding to be used more strategically to invest in new facilities or to enhance existing provision/ programmes of work, where payments in-lieu of on-site provision were received from developers.

 vii.         The Council was also involved in discussions with landowners and developers on the opportunities to work across site boundaries where there was significant development planned, for example, to explore the potential for construction apprenticeships that could be supported across different sites that may not be viable and to offer rewarding career progression pathways for local people given the length of time that was needed for the build out across strategic sites.

viii.         As an example of developers working together, the City Council had led the commissioning of a Northeast Cambridge Employment, Skills and Training needs analysis, on behalf of the Northeast Cambridge Steering Group (the major landowners across the NEC Area Action Plan Area).  This would provide the basis for future development of an NEC wide Employment, Skills and Training Strategy and Implementation plan, based on inclusive growth objectives, to enhance the life skills and opportunities for people in the area. The plan would extend across the staggered 25-year build phase and beyond to operation/occupation of the new district proposed. (The work was being carried out by a partnership of Rocket Science working with Cambridge Econometrics.)

 

Supplementary Question:

      i.         This had been an issue for a long time and was an issue across the county. 

    ii.         The scale of the Housing Minister’s Plans for Cambridge Housing plans was significant.

   iii.         Had been advised by residents that they did not feel that the large employers ‘were meeting them halfway’ regarding retraining for adults. People could not afford to pay for the fees that were required to retrain in those areas where employees state they have a chronic shortage.

  iv.         Many people could not afford to go to places of learning which were on the other side of town; the transport infrastructure was also inadequate.

    v.         Following a debate on the lifelong learning in the House of Lords questions had asked Baroness Jackie Smith to speak with developers and employers to work with local councils and the Combined Authority to have more lifelong learning facilities that were more accessible financially and by public transport. This could also be considered when considering future transport plans. Baroness Smith had also brought the matter to the House of Parliament.

 

The leader said the following:

          i.         Could not disagree with the speaker’s comments.

        ii.          It may be possible for the City Council to also work with the Cambridge Growth Company to look at skills and training opportunities.

       iii.          Not only were houses being built but two reservoirs were planned for the area. It was important to ensure that people from across the county had access to those jobs, therefore, it was important that retraining was accessible to all.

 

Question 3

      i.         Whilst the UNISON branch obviously welcomed the thorough Equality Impact Assessments on how the Group Design Programme would impact staff, there appears to have been very little consideration given to how these job cuts would directly impact the most vulnerable working for our City.

    ii.         UNISON would like to know if Councillors feel confident that the job cuts that will come out of the savings to valued services of £1,313,640 will not lead to further alienation, marginalisation, and disadvantage? (this is on page 75 Appendix D in the report pack, S5251, S5252, and S5254)

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance & Resources answered:

      i.         Welcomed the Trade Unions continued dialogue as the Council went through organisational changes.

    ii.         Savings were needed because of previous ideological commitments by previous governments to defund local government and other public services.

   iii.         More recent changes were required due to external economic shocks which had created higher rates of inflation and rising costs.

  iv.         The Council could ignore a burgeoning deficit and not balance the budget which would end in dire straits, making rapid and indiscriminate cuts to balance the budget or be put in the hands of central government.

    v.         The Council had chosen a course of responsibility as the first essential service to the public which was to balance the budget.

  vi.         Had instructed senior officers at the start of the process to minimise the impact on staff as far as possible.

 vii.         Did not want to see any compulsory redundancies.

viii.         Labour had its roots in the trade union movement and was trying to protect workers rights in the circumstances that the Council were in. 

  ix.         Would continue to work closely with the Trade Unions to ensure that staff were supported throughout the process.

    x.         Alternative solutions such as redeployment, voluntary redundancies and upskilling opportunities would be explored where possible.

  xi.         Recognised the commitment and dedication of every member of staff to public service and would make every effort to avoid compulsory redundancies.  

 

Supplementary Question:

      i.         Noted the Council’s commitment to avoid compulsory redundancies but all redundancies would not be voluntary.

    ii.         What had the Council done in lobbying the Government for increased funding for local government.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance & Resources said the following:

      i.         There was currently a consultation on the future of Local Government funding.

    ii.         The Government had set out basic principles for the reforms in two areas, one was to reflect the needs of a local area which the Council were likely to benefit from as the funding formula had failed to catch up with the increase in population.

   iii.         Cambridge had the fastest growing population of any local authority in the country; therefore, any new funding formula would reflect that.

  iv.         The second area was to reset business rates retention monies which the Council had benefited from. The reset would impact the Council heavily.

    v.         A response was being collated to the consultation which would be submitted on Wednesday making the case for Cambridge.

  vi.         One issue that the Council could not get around, was that residents in the north paid more in council tax than here in Cambridge, receiving poorer services for it. The Government was committed to balance out the funding across the country so there was a degree of fairness as currently there was an unbalance across the country.

 vii.         Government policy was not going to be as supportive as the Council would like it to be.

viii.         Should take into consideration the amount of funding being received from Government for infrastructure and other investments into the city, such as Homes England to support the Council’s housing programme.

 

Matter for Decision

The information report provided an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) Board. Before this report Members received a presentation of the CPCA’s work on skills and employment.

 

Therefore, there was no decision to be made by the relevant Executive Councillor but to note the report.

 

The Chair welcomed Lynne Miles, the new Director of Place & Economy to their first meeting of the Strategy & Resources Committee.

 

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 Andrea Wood, MBE, Assistant Director for Skills and Employment, CPCA, followed by Councillor A Smith.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Assistant Director for Skills and Employment, CPCA, said the following:

      i.         There was rising number of learners who were reporting health and mental health conditions.

    ii.         There was a lack of engagement in young adult skills provision which had been impacted by COVID, particularly mental health.   This was one of the prevailing reasons many young people (18-24 years) were presently economically inactive.

   iii.         The CPCA programme did take these issues into consideration working closely with the relevant volunteering community sectors and agencies for individuals to access support as well as participating in learning. 

  iv.         Connect to Work was a programme particularly focused on working with adults with health conditions, including mental health, also learning difficulties and disabilities. This programme required a systems approach to ensure individuals had the wrap around support to participate fully.

    v.         Transport was a barrier for some to access learning. A travel to earn and learn group had been formed to look at bringing together existing strategies to tackle some of the challenges that had an impact on transport and infrastructure. 

  vi.         Was also working with the CPCA’s commissioned skills providers, so they were aware that they had the flexibility to use their adult skills funding to pay for learner’s transport costs, who were using public transport to get to their place of learning.

 vii.         Youth Forum had been established because of the Youth Guarantee Trailblazer. This had been done to ensure young people were co-designing the trailblazer work, focused on 18–21-year-olds. The premise of the Forum was to use the strength of existing youth voice services and communities across the region. 

viii.         Working to bring together a number of youth voice services, such as Youth Parliament, groups and youth council’s and the workforce of youth workers, especially those working with vulnerable young people who were leaving the care system or accessing services through the criminal justice system.

  ix.         Careful not to duplicate work but building on what already existed within the region.

 

In response to Members’ questions Councillor A Smith responded with the following:

      i.         The proposed orbital bus route had been caught in procurement issues. A bus company had been awarded several contracts for new routes which the orbital route was one, but that company had since withdrawn. Those routes had been put to procurement again, if successful the earliest the routes would start would be in the summer.

    ii.         For the orbital route there may be more than one change for the user to make it as efficient as possible, but it did not require going through the centre of the city.

   iii.         The CPCA had not raised their precept this year, the precept income would be used on other bus routes.

  iv.         Confirmed there was a reduction in 2025/26 transport levy.

 

The following questions would be answered outside of the meeting due to the limited time.

      i.         Would like an update on the Visitor Levy, would this enable a visitor tax. 

    ii.         Would like to know more on the Tiger on Demand Service and the impact on Dial-a-Ride.

   iii.         How did UK REiiF (Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum) tie in with Innovate Cambridge, Cambridge Ahead and the Cambridge Growth Company work and All-Party Parliamentary Group

  iv.         How did the Greater South East Net Zero connect with the Cambridge net zero strategy.

    v.         What was the purpose of the consultants brought in by the CPCA to look at the strategic research and economic analysis funded by Homes England.

 

The Committee noted the report.

 

The Executive Councillor noted the report.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor

Matter for Decision

The report referred to an update on the recent developments with Central Governments project for the growth of Cambridge. The report was to note.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources.

Noted the update on the progress of the Cambridge Delivery Company (CDC) implementation.

 

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 Chief Executive 

 

In response to Members’ questions the Leader of the Council said the following:

      i.         Noted the request to invite Peter Freeman, CDC Chair, to a future Strategy and Resources Committee meeting.

    ii.         As the Council’s representative should be held to account and would be happy to answer any questions.

   iii.         The aim of the CGC and the Advisory Council was to prepare the way for a Development Corporation, the Advisory Council should be a part of that development, as shown in the terms of reference which had previously been shared with the committee.

  iv.         Did not believe a high number of staff had currently been employed by the CGC to date, but significant employment budget had been approved.

    v.         The matter of staffing and consultancies had been raised with the Chair and other Local Authority Leaders on the Advisory Board, as had concern there could be a risk of duplication of resource and expertise that already existed within the Council.

  vi.         There needed to be a more transparent approach of the work undertaken by the CGC and prior to that delivery group. Once it was clear on what had been commissioned, recommendations could be made on as to which individuals and groups could support that work which should be done in conjunction with the local area.

 vii.         Had asked the Chair of CGC for the total number of staff employed, their roles and how the Advisory Council could become involved in the recruitment process. 

viii.         As a result of the Government’s initiative on growth in Cambridge this would exceed the current Local Plan but was yet to be determined for the future Local Plan as this was still to be resolved.

  ix.         The Government’s growth initiative needed to run alongside the emerging Local Plan and Officers look at how the two would interrelate.

    x.         The Government would be releasing funding for the Chatteris reservoir and improvements to Grafham Water reservoir. However, there was a shortage in the interim and agreed there need to be greater clarity on the outcome on the work of the Water Scarcity Group.

  xi.         The Development Corporation would provide the Government sight on the funding released for growth; it was anticipated that this would be billions.

 xii.         Development Corporation had longevity, responsibility for  the development process working and did not require political whim. It would continue if there were political changes locally.

xiii.         Stockport Development Corporation deemed a success, consisted of senior-level private sector board members,  Homes England and Greater Manchester Combined Authority and representatives from Stockport City Council’s main political parties, was which had changed from a Labour run authority to Liberal Democrat.

xiv.         It was important to determine how the Development Corporation could listen and hear the voices of local people, otherwise if run badly it become a charter for developers.

xv.         It was important to work with and facilitate discussions with external stakeholders such as AstraZeneca, while recognising their significance nationally.  

xvi.         Agreed there were pressure groups who could influence the growth programme in Cambridge, and it was important that the Council had a voice in partnership with those groups.

xvii.         An example of the City Council’s collaborative working with Cambridge leaders was shown in the published joint open letter to Government on the development of Cambridge.

xviii.         Confirmed the Greater Cambridge Partnership were involved in the growth plan for Cambridge and believed there was opportunities for further seats to be made available on the Advisory Council for external partners.

xix.         There had been one meeting of the Advisory Council and there were further discussions to be had on responsibility and accountability.

xx.         Would not agree that there had been a lot of public criticism of the Water Scarcity Group but had welcomed the fact there was a group trying to address the issues.  There may be possible criticisms that the answers had not come quickly enough, but there was a process that had to worked through. 

xxi.         The Water Scarcity Group had recommended that water efficiency fittings could be applied to existing housing and commercial stock but agreed there was a labour and skills shortage of plumbers. The Council were currently undertaking a tendering process to improve the situation.

 

The Chief Executive informed the Committee that CGC were developing a website for information, where published agendas and minutes could be found.

 

The Committee noted the report.

 

The Executive Councillor noted the report.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

The report referred to an update on progress to establish Greater Cambridge Impact (GCI) and made a recommendation to the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources to enable the Council’s investment in GCI to be included in 25/26 General Fund Budget.

 

The Chair welcomed Sara Allen, Executive Director of Greater Cambridge Impact to the meeting.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources agreed the following:

      i.         Noted progress made with securing equity and loan finance and developing the pipeline of projects for first investment during the second half of 2025.

    ii.         Requested that a single investment of £0.8m to the Greater Cambridge Impact is included in the 2025/26 General Fund

   iii.         Budget to be recommended to Full Council (noting these funds were agreed ‘in principle’ by full Council on 20th July 2023 subject to progress towards funding commitments of £5m from other parties)

  iv.         Requested that drawdown is delegated to the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources, following consultation with Chair and Opposition Spokes,  following reassurance from the Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer in consultation with  that governance arrangements are in place and due diligence is completed.

    v.         Requested approval of the nomination of the Chief Executive as the Council’s representative on the Greater Cambridge Impact Company Board.

 

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 Economic Development Manager.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Economic Development Manager and Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources said the following:

      i.         The report was setting out the basis for the availability of funding in the 2025/25 budget.

    ii.         To trigger the drawn down was to reach the first close of £5 million then the first viable investment could be made. The Council’s funds would not be used until that point had been triggered. Therefore, was asking for the funds to be made available but would be drawn down when the first close was reached.

   iii.         Fundraising would continue as the final close was a target of £10million.

  iv.         There were two substantial investors who were ready to commit but wanted to see the Council’s own commitment. There needed to be mutual confidence building at this point in the process.

    v.         Projects planned would provide interventions that prevented poverty and expensive public expenditure.

  vi.         The Committee should be confident that the GCI was being managed by extremely skilled individuals with enough assurances there was undue risk to the Council.

 vii.         This was a one-off investment from the Council. Future investors would see that there was £5million in the fund.

viii.         This was the moment for maximum confidence building to take the scheme forward.

  ix.         The Council’s funding would be retained in reserves earning interest and would only be released when the £5million had been reached.

    x.         The Chief Executive had been nominated as the Council’s representative, investors were not politicians and were making their investments based on the projects in front of them which did not have political bias attached to them. There had to be political neutrality.

  xi.         This was a long-term fund which would survive many political administrations.

 xii.         The Officer nominated was also a national expert on the subject.

 

The Chief Executive highlighted recommendation no 3 of the Officer’s report which stated the Council’s investment was subject to progress towards funding commitments of £5m from other parties.

 

The Council had committed to funding in principle, it was now about identifying the funds, not about deploying the money. There would be a further stage of due diligence, which would provide an opportunity of additional scrutiny before funding would be released.

 

Councillor Bick proposed an amendment to the Officer’s recommendation (iv),Councillor Young seconded, to add additional text to include Chair and Opposition Spokes (additional text underlined).

 

  iv.         Requested that drawdown is delegated to the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources, following consultation with Chair and Opposition Spokes,  following reassurance from the Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer in consultation with that governance arrangements are in place and due diligence is completed.

 

The amendment was carried unanimously.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations as amended.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations as amended.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor

Appendix I(ii) 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 Committee were present with the Budget Setting Report (BSR) been set out in the Medium-Term Financial Strategy approved by Full Council in October 2024.

 

Members were informed of the following typographical error in the report (p50) in that the target level and minimal level of HRA (Housing Revenue Account) resources were the wrong way round which would be corrected for the meeting of Full Council on 24 February.

 

The minimal level for HRA reserves should state £6.161milion and the target level of £7.393 million.

 

A summary of changes had also been published as a supplement on the committee agenda pages of the Council’s website.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources (noting the summary of changes) to refer the recommendations to the Executive:

 

General Fund Revenue Budgets:

a) Recommend to Council for approval the revenue pressures and bids shown in Appendix D(a) and the revenue savings and increased income shown in Appendix D(b).

b) Recommend that Council confirms delegation to the Chief Finance Officer of the calculation and determination of the council tax taxbase which is set out at Appendix A(a).

c) Recommend that Council approves the increase to the city council share of council tax for 2025/26 at 2.99%, and the updated council tax levels as set out on page 17 of the attached Budget Setting Report 2025/26.

Note that the council’s preceptors (Cambridgeshire Police & Crime Commissioner, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Fire Authority, Cambridgeshire County Council and Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority) will meet to confirm their precepts on or before 13 February 2025, following which the formal council tax calculation will be carried out for approval by Council.

d) Recommend that Council delegates authority to the Chief Finance Officer to reallocate budgets between services in relation to corporate and/or departmental restructuring, and any reallocation of support service and central costs in accordance with the CIPFA Service Reporting Code of Practice for Local Authorities (SeRCOP).

 

General Fund Capital Plan:

e) Recommend that Council approves the capital proposals set out at Appendix E(a), the revised capital plan set out at Appendix E(c), and the revised capital funding approach set out on page 28 of the attached Budget Setting Report 2025/26.

f) Recommend that Council approves the Capital Strategy 2025/26 attached at Appendix H.

 

General Fund Reserves:

g) Recommend that Council note the impact of budget proposals upon General Fund unallocated reserves, as set out on page 34 of the attached Budget Setting Report 2025/26.

h) Recommend that Council note the key risks to the council’s financial sustainability highlighted in the table on pages 30-31 of the attached Budget Setting Report 2025/26.

i) Recommend that Council approve in principle a contribution to the Civic Quarter Development Reserve equivalent to the net underspend against budget for the 2024/25 financial year (currently forecast at £4.0 million).

j) Recommend that Council approve the transfers to earmarked reserves totalling £6.602 million in 2025/26 as set out on pages 32-33 of the attached Budget Setting Report 2025/26.

Section 25 Report:

k) Recommend that Council note the Chief Finance Officer’s Section 25 Report, covering the robustness of estimates and adequacy of reserves, included at section 7 of the attached Budget Setting Report 2025/26.

 

Treasury Management Strategy:

l) Recommend that Council approves the Treasury Management Strategy 2025/26 attached at Appendix G, including the prudential and treasury management indicators set out at Annexe C.

m) Recommends that Council approves a change to the maturity structure prudential indicator, such that all new borrowing will have a maturity of at least 5 years (rather than the previous 10 years), as explained at paragraph 3.8 of Appendix G.

 

Other:

n) Recommend that Full Council reconfirm that the incomes below will be disregarded (if above the £10 statutory disregard) when calculating entitlement to housing benefit and/or council tax reduction. These schemes are often called local or modified schemes:

·      War disablement pension

·      War widow, widower or surviving civil partner pension

·      Armed Forces Independence Payment

Note that the estimated cost to the council for payments of housing benefit made under the local scheme is £1,777.50 and for council tax reduction less than £50.

o) Recommend that Council note the Equality Impact Assessment in Appendix F covering all General Fund budget proposals.

p) Recommend that Council note the schedule of proposed fees and charges for 2025/26 in Appendix I(i) and Confidential Appendix I(ii)

 

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 Chief Financial Officer.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Chief Financial Officer, the Executive Councillor for City Services, Executive Councillor for Climate for Action and Environment, Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources and Chief Operating Officer, Director for Communities and Director of City Services said the following:

      i.         The Pinder Service would remain employed by the Council.

    ii.         The assumptions around the proposed Civic Quarter should it be approved by Full Council had assumed that some level of borrowing will be needed to part finance that project. The additional interest income of £3million (p32) was likely to be a one-off wind fall from interest rates remaining higher for longer than were anticipated. It was considered a good use of funds earned through the treasury management towards capital financing which would reduce the amount of borrowing on this project.

   iii.         Past practice had determined that where there had been surplus from CIP (Cambridge Investment Partnership) (p39) this would be earmarked against future capital projects to reduce the need to borrow for future finance capital expenditure.

  iv.         CIP was a 50/50 joint venture, if there was any surplus from completed development projects, 50% would come back to the Council which would be reinvested into new capital projects.

    v.         Given the size and variety of the Council’s property portfolio (both operational and commercial) there was a high inherent risk associated with the potential need to undertake unforeseen repairs (p41). Mitigations were in place around the council’s property such as the use of property conditions surveys.

  vi.         There was uncertainty in finding the remaining savings to total £11million under staff restructuring as no detailed plan had yet been determined on how that target would be reached, but this was a phased approach. The first phase was a target of £6million in the first two years, finding £4.9million of savings in the first year had demonstrated significant progress.

 vii.         There were other ways of thinking that were being considered to meet the £11million target over the next few years; the redevelopment of the Civic Quarter should deliver lasting revenue savings.

viii.         Further work would be undertaken to look at how the capital programme would be financed, such as, if capital finance was being used in the most effective way. More detailed work on the expenditure plan and what could be removed or streamlined to meet the £11millon savings target would also be looked at.

  ix.         The medium plan budgets were produced on a five-year rolling period, and it was important to determine that the Council had sufficient reserves in that five-year period which believed that it did. There was a budget gap to close over that period and this was an ongoing process each year over the medium term.

    x.         Welcomed the suggestion that the Council could publicise green funerals more which could potentially increase the cremation income (RI5299) under appendix D(a), p71,

  xi.         The garage income (RI5300) under appendix D(a), p71, related to the garage vehicle fixing facility at Waterbeach, not those in the city and there was no reported antisocial behaviour related to that site.

 xii.         At the January meeting of the full Licensing Committee the matter of garages to carry out taxi testing for a licence and during the life of the licence was reviewed.  Only two garages in the city had expressed an interest in providing testing facilities, one of these garages would not be able to test Tesler vehicles, so testing would be limited. Therefore, testing would continue at Waterbeach, but the Council’s new operational hub would be open soon on Cowley Road which may be a future option.

xiii.         The combined total savings of £1.7 under staff restructuring, communities (S5251), city services (S5252), corporate hub (S5254) were related to changes in the staffing structure, not to changes in services. In each case, work had been undertaken to look at how the services could be delivered more efficiently by looking at staff restructuring. 

xiv.         Noted the comment that the way the savings had been presented under staff restructuring (S5251, S5252, S5254) were almost impossible for scrutiny but did not agree.

xv.         Noted the comment regarding the reduction in Public Realm Enforcement Team over a three year period.  The Public Realm Enforcement Team had been down resource for a long period of time; as part of the management of resources, had looked to take out vacancies to limit the impact.

xvi.         To determine how the service could be delivered more efficiently it was recommended to bring the Public Realm Enforcement Team more closely aligned with other services, such Environmental Health (with broader skills and experience), and Community Safety, who together could deliver a wider range of work on issues such as  anti-social behaviour, without having a detrimental impact on residents.

xvii.         Would confirm the day-to-day operations including the public realm enforcement patrols outside of the meeting, until implementation had been finalised the question was difficult to answer.

xviii.         The Streets and Open Spaces consultation aimed to create new roles in the service, remove outdated posts and consolidate other position, all for greater efficiency and changing how the service would be delivered. This would be more data driven which would improve service delivery to measure performance, all of which supported the streamlining process and tightened budgetary control by using technology for greater efficiency.

xix.         There would also be a cultural shift towards greater collaboration, empowering staff who would become involved in the decision making.

xx.         Streets and Open Spaces Teams would be integrated into local neighbourhoods to better serve the residents and tenants.

xxi.         The 20% reduction for the Streets and Open Spaces Team would occur because of long-term vacant posts and improved services. This would be a mixture of office and front-line staff; the majority would be front line staff. 

xxii.         An example of data driven working was the ongoing bin sensor project, this measured which bins required emptying and when. Initial data suggested a 30% efficiency by re-profiling the staff rounds. The audit for street cleansing would also be data driven to work more efficiently.

xxiii.         The Council were committed to providing high quality public toilets in the right locations across the city and be responsive to the public needs.

xxiv.         Confirmed the public toilets (S5257) at Romsey recreation ground and Cherry Hinton high street would remain open, not closed as indicated in the BSR Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA).

xxv.         The Grand Arcade shop mobility toilet would remain open, and refurbishment would be considered. This no longer met the parameter as a Changing Place toilet but was still useful for the public. There were four Changing Place toilets across the city. 

xxvi.         Public toilets that were proposed to be closed were Gonville Place, Victoria Avenue and Quayside  p75) due to the reduced usage and the need to make savings. The BSR EqIA would be changed to highlight these closures when presented at the meeting of Full Council.

xxvii.         There was provision in Section 106 (S106) to bring forward investment in multi-use facilities for Jesus Green and the Lido, as part of public toilets provision. A feasibility options study would be brought forward to integrate work with the Lido. The capital allocation would be identified, once the cost had been finalised.

xxviii.         Community toilets were facilities provided by local businesses who had agreed to open them to the public.

xxix.         Noted the request for more signage to help people access public convivences faster and would speak to the relevant officers on this matter,  but this information could be found via certain apps.

xxx.         There were two elements to the swimming charges (II5284), on for residents and a higher charge for non-city residents.

xxxi.         Swimming charges had not increased each year with inflation but due to the increase in running costs, to keep the swimming pools open, there had been no other choice but to raise the entry cost. Concessions still applied, for some groups it meant a reduction in price, while there would be a higher charge for others.

xxxii.         Would have to supply the income figures for Bereavement Services and the Garage in relation to the cost of supplying those services outside of the meeting. 

xxxiii.         Would describe the income from the Garage as an added benefit; the Garage was responsible for the servicing maintenance and breakdown of the Council’s fleet, the Greater Cambridge Shared Waste Services vehicles and for other surrounding local authorities and businesses.

xxxiv.         Whilst there was a reduction in income from the Crematorium, there was still a surplus.

xxxv.         As part of the transformation restructuring, officers would be undertaking work to look at the future of the Crematorium and the Garage.

xxxvi.         Under statute, the Council before the start of each financial year was required to estimate the level of business rates that would be collected in the following year. This was the basis on which the Council would withdraw money from the collection fund to fund services. If there was a difference between the amount that had been estimated prior to the year beginning and what was collected, this could create a surplus or a deficit, which would be distributed the following year between the Council and those authorities / organisations collecting the precept.

xxxvii.         The reason for the large deficit for the business rates this year was that the Council within the collection fund as whole had over £10millon in adjustments to the previous year business rates appeal settled by the Valuation Office.

xxxviii.         Further research would be undertaken on how the car parks operated including car parking charges for street parking

  

The Committee voted 5 to 1 with 2 abstentions to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor

The decision was noted.