Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Tunnacliffe. Councillor Brierley was present as the alternate.

 

Councillor	Item	Interest
Saunders	13/15/ENV	Personal: Member of Cambridge Past, Present and Future Personal: Member of the RSPB Personal: Member of Cambridge Cycling Campaign
Reid	13/15/ENV	Personal: Member of Cambridge Past Present and Future. Personal: Member of Cambridge Cycling Campaign Personal: Has links with Cambridge Retrofit Personal: Lives in a building of Local Interest
O’Reilly	13/15/ENV	Personal: Member of Cambridge Cycling Campaign
Blencowe	13/15/ENV	Personal: Chairman of YMCA Football Club who have made representation on this item
Kightley	13/15/ENV	Personal: Employee of NIAB

 

To approve the minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record.

 

Attached separately

Russell Tame addressed the committee regarding the Briefing Report on Article 4. Details are listed under item 13/18/ENV.  

 

John Meed and Roger Crabtree addressed the committee regarding the Cambridge Local Plan. Details as listed under item 13/15/ENV. Councillors Lewis Herbert, Jean Swanson and Sue Birtles also addressed the committee on the Local Plan item.

Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chair used his 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:  

Fleet Management took control of Cambridge City Council’s fuel supplies in September 2008 and tendered for supply of the fuel through ESPO. This contract is due to expire in September 2013. It was more cost effective to manage the fuel in house due to the whole sale purchase cost compared to prices paid at local service stations.

 

Vehicle telematics were installed in September 2008 replacing the AVTS system (Automated Vehicle Location System) and provided a number of key benefits: improved security of resources, health and safety of employees, significant reduction in fleet carbon emissions, reductions in vehicle motor claims to our insurers and savings in fuel.

 

The tyre contract was necessary for the supply of tyres required to run the Council’s fleet of vehicles.

 

The tyre contract will require an outside service provider to regularly inspect and replace tyres. These preventative maintenance measures will provide a saving due to less wear and tear on vehicle parts.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services:

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

Procurement recommendations:

       i.          Approve the carrying out and completion of the procurement of tyres, fuel and telematics- Fuel   - £500k per annum

- Tyres - £36k per annum

- Telematics

- £24k per annum

 

     ii.          Subject to:

- The permission of the Director of Resources being sought prior to proceeding if the quotation or tender sum exceeds the estimated contract.

 

-  The permission from the Executive Councillor being sought before proceeding if the value exceeds the estimated contract by more than 15%.

 

Reason for the Decision:

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

Not applicable as pre-scrutiny was not requested.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable.

Matter for Decision:  

The report presented a summary of the 2012/13 outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for services within the Environmental and Waste Services portfolio, compared to the final budget for the year. The position for revenue and capital was reported and variances from budgets are highlighted, together with explanations. Requests to carry forward funding arising from certain budget underspends into 2013/14 are identified.

 

It was noted that outturn reports being presented in this Committee cycle reflect the reporting structures in place prior to the recent changes in Executive portfolios. In light of those changes (together with the requirement to report outturn on the basis of portfolios in place during 2012/13) members of this committee were asked to consider the proposals to carry forward budgets and make their views known to The Leader, for consideration at Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee prior to his recommendations to Council.

 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services:

 

The Executive Councillor noted the views of the Scrutiny Committee regarding the following proposals, and resolved to make their views known to The Leader, for consideration at Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee prior to his recommendations to Council:

 

       i.          To carry forward £74,550 of revenue budget from 2012/13 to 2013/14, as detailed in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          To carry forward capital resources to fund rephased net capital spending of £216,000 from 2012/13 into 2013/14, 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 Accountant regarding the Revenue and Capital Outturn, Carry Forwards and significant variances.

 

In response to questions from Members the Head of Streets and Open Spaces provided additional information on training underspends.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable.

Matter for Decision:  

The report requested the authority to utilise the Scape National Minor Framework for the design and construction of the Lion Yard and Silver Street Toilet Refurbishment Projects. Utilisation of this framework would speed up the delivery of the projects, realise best value resulting from a national competitive tendering exercise and allow for early contractor involvement throughout the design to ensure cost, time, buildability and maintenance are considered throughout all project stages.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services:

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

       i.          Authorise the procurement of Faithful and Gould (F+G) and Kier for design and construction services for the redevelopment of the Lion Yard and Silver Street Public Toilets, using the Scape National Minor Framework.

     ii.          Agree to take the decision to approve the project appraisal and implementation of the Lion Yard Refurbishment works out of the committee cycle, in consultation with the Chair and Spokes, subject to the final proposed construction costs not exceeding £400k.

 

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 Project Delivery and Environment Manager regarding the Public Toilet Refurbishments. In response to members’ questions, he explained the open book accounting process and offered additional clarity on the status of the contract.

 

Members expressed their thanks to the Lion Yard Toilet Working Party and were pleased that their input into the project would continue.

 

The Committee resolved by unanimously to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable.

Matter for Decision:  

To upgrade the existing Cemetery and Crematorium Administration System and transfer that system to a hosted arrangement with Gower Consultants.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Public Places:

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

 Financial recommendations –

       i.          Recommend this scheme (which is not included in the Council’s Capital & Revenue Project Plan) for approval by Council, subject to resources being available to fund the capital and revenue costs.

•        The total cost of the project over 4 years is £23,400, funded from Bereavement Services IT Renewal & Replacement Fund

•        The ongoing revenue costs of the project are £6,505 (excl inflation), funded from existing revenue accounts

 

 Procurement recommendations:

     ii.          Approved the carrying out and completion of the procurement of:

   iii.          The transfer of the Epilog Burials and Cremation and Administration System to a hosted service with Gower Consultants.

   iv.          The upgrade of the current system to the latest stable release as part of that process.

Subject to:

•        The permission of the Director of Resources being sought prior to proceeding if the quotation or tender sum exceeds the estimated contract.

•        The permission from the Executive Councillor being sought before proceeding if the value exceeds the estimated contract by more than 15%.

 

Reason for the Decision:

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

It was possible to upgrade and retain the system in-house. However, it would be necessary to not only replace the existing server but also purchase additional equipment to run the database and web-facing services, increasing both the capital and revenue costs of the system.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

No Applicable as pre-scrutiny was not requested.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable.

The Chair ruled that under 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 the late item from the Accountant be considered despite not being made publicly available for this committee five clear days prior to the meeting.

 

The reason that this document could not be deferred was that it was impracticable to defer the decision until the next committee.  

 

Matter for Decision:  

The Officer’s report presented a summary of the 2012/13 revenue carry forward and capital rephasing requests for the new Public Places portfolio. Requests to carry forward funding arising from certain budget underspends into 2013/14 were identified.

 

Whilst the budget underspends and consequent carry forward requests were incurred when these services formed part of the Arts, Sport & Public Places portfolio reporting to the Community Services, these items would form part of budgetary control for this Scrutiny Committee and Portfolio for the 2013/14 financial year.

 

It was noted that outturn reports being presented in this Committee cycle reflect the reporting structures in place prior to the recent changes in Executive portfolios. In light of those changes (together with the requirement to report outturn on the basis of portfolios in place during 2012/13) members of this committee were asked to consider the proposals to carry forward budgets and make their views known to The Leader, for consideration at Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee prior to his recommendations to Council.

 

As the Community Services Scrutiny Committee was not being held until 25 June, it was important that members of this scrutiny committee were given the opportunity to comment on future budgetary issues in respect of this portfolio.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Public Places:

 

The Executive Councillor noted the views of the Scrutiny Committee regarding the following proposals, and resolved to make their views known to The Leader, for consideration at Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee prior to his recommendations to Council:

       i.          To carry forward requests, totalling £42,250 as detailed in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          To carry forward capital resources to fund rephased net capital spending of £526,000 from 2012/13 into 2013/14 as detailed in Appendix D of the officer’s 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 Accountant regarding revenue carry forward and capital rephasing requests.

 

Members supported the approach suggested in the Officer’s report.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable.

Matter for Decision:  

The Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire & Northamptonshire (BCN) Wildlife Trust have an existing single lease hold of two adjacent City Council owned Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) in Cherry Hinton, known as Limekiln Close LNR and West Pit LNR. The BCN Wildlife Trust have requested release from the leased area covering West Pit LNR due to perceived risks associated with the chalk face of the pit edge and the Caravan Club Site, also leased from the Council, at the base of the pit. There is a one month termination period on the existing lease. Officers proposed a change of demised area and a new twenty five year lease to the BCN Wildlife Trust covering Limekiln Close LNR only.

 

The management of the West Pit LNR would revert back to the City Council under the Streets & Open Spaces Asset Management team who manage the other City Local Nature Reserves. Officers proposed to initially close an informal footpath at West Pit along the edge of the chalk face whilst safety assessments and remedial works were undertaken. Public access to the LNR would remain from the layby at the top of Limekiln Hill.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Public Places:

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

       i.          Approve the change of demise area and new twenty five year lease of Limekiln Local Nature Reserve to the BCN Wildlife Trust.

     ii.          Instruct officers to undertake risk assessments for continued public access to the chalk slopes at West Pit and propose suitable future management and access to the Local Nature Reserve.

 

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 Streets and Open Spaces regarding the proposed change of the Wildlife Trust lease at West Pit Local Nature Reserve.

 

In response to members questions officers confirmed that there would be minimal impact on the Caravan Club and public access to the site. Alternative pathways and access points would be established to ensure the safety of the public.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable.

Attached separately

Matter for Decision:  

To consider the proposed process for the second priority-setting round, to receive an update on the progress being made on projects funded from developer contributions and to note related issues being addressed.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Public Places:

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

       i.          Note the progress being made to deliver developer contribution funded projects, including strategic priorities from the first round of devolved decision-making;

     ii.          Note the proposed process for the second priority-setting round of developer contributions devolved decision-making;

   iii.          Note the updated analysis of developer contributions devolved to each area committee fund and the city-wide fund;

   iv.          Note the issues relating to the use of developer contributions that were currently being addressed.

 

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 Urban Growth Project Manager, which highlighted that:

 

·       developer contributions-funded projects are moving forwards (six new and improved local facilities have been completed recently);

·       the proposed process for the second round of priority-setting promotes local choice (not limited to projects capable of short-term delivery), whilst making sure that it is manageable and achievable and as fair and consistent as possible to all areas;

·       there is a continuing commitment and energy to strengthen the Council’s approach to delivering developer contribution-funded projects - the focus is on project delivery.

 

Members of the committee made the following comments in response to the report, for officers to take into account in finalising the process.

 

       i.          The approach to the first round of priority-setting under developer contributions  devolved decision-making had been driven by the need to spend the money quickly rather than the projects most needed.

     ii.          The current process was prescriptive and made long-term, large scale projects harder to achieve.

   iii.          Priority-setting based on needs and wishes identified by area consultation workshops had not been the most helpful approach without objective statistics and evidence of need.

   iv.          Articulate groups had better access to funding whilst harder-to-reach groups might miss out. However, members were wary that authorising officers to make specific arrangements to consult such groups could set up a parallel process. The engagement process needed to be simple and to involve members.

    v.          The emphasis needed to be on delivery.

   vi.          The presentation of the process was thought to be overly complicated and could benefit from simple/more concise communication.

 vii.          A flow chart to explain the process was agreed to be a good idea.

viii.          Residents needed to be kept informed regarding the status of projects that were prioritised in the first round and opportunities for taking forward other project ideas that had not yet been prioritised.

   ix.          More flexibility was needed at an area level in applying the proposed corporate process locally.

    x.          Concerns were raised about the funding of projects across area committee boundaries prior to devolved decision-making. Proposals to address issues relating to the Newtown Community Development Capital Grants Programme were welcomed.

   xi.          A query was raised whether recent difficulties relating to the Parker’s Piece public art project would have any particular financial implications. The officer clarified that the developer contribution, which had to be spent by next summer, had been reallocated to another project and therefore addressed. Developer contributions with expiry dates are monitored closely to avoid developer contributions having to be returned.

 

The Committee resolved to amend recommendation 2.2 of the report to read as follow (additional wording in bold and underlined):

 

2.2     To endorse  note the proposed process for the second priority-setting round of developer contributions devolved decision-making (see Section 5 of the Officer’s report)

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable.

Matter for Decision:  

To approve the undertaking of a feasibility study and potential physical improvements to the drainage capacity of an area of 16000m2 of Jesus Green, to alleviate problems with seasonal standing surface water.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Public Places:

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

Financial recommendations

       i.          The Executive Councillor, in consultation with the Chair and Spokes is asked to approve the feasibility study and commencement of this scheme, which is already included in the Council’s Capital & Revenue Project Plan (PR034C - 38226).

·       The total cost of the project is £ 105,000 funded from developer contributions

·       The on-going revenue costs of the project are £ 1,500 per annum over a 30 year period, funded from Streets and Open Spaces Repairs and Renewals fund.

 

Procurement recommendations:

     ii.          The Executive Councillor approved the commencement of the project and procurement, including the award of contract, of contractors for the drainage improvements for Jesus Green

Subject to:

·       The permission of the Director of Resources being sought prior to proceeding if the quotation or tender sum exceeds the estimated contract value.

·       The permission from the Executive Councillor being sought before proceeding if the value exceeds the estimated contract by more than 15%.

 

 

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 Project Delivery and Environment Manager regarding Jesus Green Drainage Improvements.

 

Councillor Kightley proposed an amendment to the financial recommendations as follow (additional wording in bold and underlined):

 

·       The Executive Councillor, in consultation with the Chair and Spokes is asked to approve the feasibility study and commencement of this scheme, which is already included in the Council’s Capital & Revenue Project Plan (PR034C - 38226).

Members agreed the amendment.

 

In response to questions from members, the Officer confirmed the following:

       i.          The proposed works would not stop flooding but would ensure the ground drained quicker.

     ii.          Arboricultural Officers would be consulted but no impact on the trees was anticipated.

   iii.          There would be a visual impact on the area for some months. However long term visual amenity would be unaffected.

   iv.          Discussions were on-going with the Environment Agency.

    v.          Members welcomed the prospect of using the area as a sports facility for longer periods of the year than currently possible.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the amended recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable.

To follow

John Meed

John Meed addressed the Committee and made the following points:

 

·       Bird surveys indicate that the loss of the Green Belt would have a significant impact on wildlife.

·       The ecological richness of the environment would be lost.

·       The policies within the plan appear contradictory. For example, Policy 70 and Policy 26 are contradictory regarding skylarks.

·       Data from the Wildlife Trust regarding sites GB 1 – 4 have been disregarded.

·       There appeared to be a lack of detailed evidence regarding wildlife, such as what variety of bats inhabits any given area.

 

The Head of Planning Services responded with the following comments:

 

·       Where necessary, sites would be subject to further investigation before development proceeds.

·       Investigating the Green Belt was a huge undertaking and all sites in the plan had been investigated.

·       Feedback had been gathered from many advisors and issues raised were listed in the audit trail document and representations section of the report.

·       Changes had been made in the size of the sites being recommended and in the detailed mitigation requirements to protect wildlife habitats.

·       The character of Wort’s Causeway would be protected and numbers on that site had been reduced.

 

John Meed suggested that more evidence was needed and that the loss of meadows would have an impact on wildlife.

 

Roger Crabtree Chair of Rustat Road Resident’s Association

 

Roger Crabtree addressed the Committee and made the following points about the Clifton Road area :

 

·       Local residents have concerns about transport issues.

·       The proposals would see a development almost as large as CB1.

·       There were concerns that local jobs would be lost as the area was developed into high rise apartments for London commuters.

·       Access issues lack clarity.

·       Lessons learnt from CB1 need to be applied to this site.

·       Transport strategies of both South Cambridgeshire District Council and the Cambridgeshire County Council are disappointing and lacking in action plans.

 

The Head of Planning Services responded with the following comments:

 

·       There is a requirement to identify and meet development needs and this had led to a reassessment of this site to make the best use of the space.

·       A wider plan would be needed for the long term future of the area.

·       The area would be developed with a supplementary planning document/ master plan and a transport study to ensure a quality development.

 

Roger Crabtree stated that residents were not opposed to the development of the site but that there were concerns about the size and scale of the proposals.

 

Councillor Swanson

 

Councillor Swanson commented that Cambridge Water can move the major water main that crosses GB2 at the developer’s expense. She also questioned what had happened to other Local Authorities who had failed to meet identified development targets.

 

The Head of Planning Services responded. The NPPF and experience from elsewhere was clear that every effort should be made by councils to meet identified need. Joint working with neighbouring authorities had identified the number of homes and jobs needed. The Local Plan had demonstrated an inability to fully meet the need within the existing non-greenbelt locations and had necessitated a review of the Green Belt.

 

The risk for the council in failure to produce a plan to meet needs was that this could lead to the plan being found to be unsound. This could result in decisions being taken out of City Council control and could result in speculative development plans coming forward.

 

Councillor Herbert

 

Councillor Herbert addressed the Committee and made the following points:

 

·       Station Area East appeared to be a sudden late addition to the plan of a further 400 homes.

·       This was a large site, close to the railway and a cap on housing numbers was needed.

·       Parking capacity on streets in Coleridge would be lost.

·       While recognising the need to develop the site, there appears to be a lack of local consultation.

·       An Area Action Plan was needed.

·       Developers will make false promises.

·       This is a high value site and there would be pressure to increase density.

 

The Head of Planning Services responded and acknowledged that the timeframes for the plan had been tight. However, the site had been carefully considered. Not all parts of the site would be suitable for residential use but the site offered potential. The site is different from CB1 and would become a part of existing communities. Lessons had been learnt and a cap would be set.

 

Councillor Birtles

 

Councillor Birtles addressed the Committee and made the following points:

 

·       The bio-diversity of sites GB1 and GB2 deserve protection.

·       Local residents were against the development.

·       The impact on wildlife had been underestimated.

·       Why had sites been re-examined just to fill the shortfall of numbers?

 

The Head of Planning Services responded. Officers who had examined the plan were comfortable with the proposals. Concerns had been taken into account and further survey work was planned.

 

Matter for Decision:  

The report concerned the new draft Cambridge Local Plan.

 

The Development Plan Scrutiny Sub-Committee considered the draft Local Plan on 29 May. The purpose of the report was to present the complete version of the Plan as currently drafted, including appendices and the changes requested by the Development Plan Scrutiny Sub-Committee.

 

The report recommended that the Plan should be considered by the Environment Scrutiny Committee and then by Full Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

 The Executive Councillor resolved:

 

       i.          To agree the draft Cambridge Local Plan 2014 subject to any changes recommended by Environment Scrutiny Committee on 11June and Full Council on 27 June (including the adoption of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Memorandum of Co-operation approach for plan making under the duty to co-operate (Appendix H of the Officer’s report));

     ii.          To recommend to Full Council that the Plan is approved for the purposes of publication under Regulations 19 and 20 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.

   iii.          To agree that any amendments and editing changes that need to be made to the draft Local Plan (and associated Sustainability Appraisal and other appendices) put to Full Council be agreed by the Executive Councillor in consultation with the Chair and Spokesperson of Development Plan Scrutiny Sub-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 the Head of Planning Services regarding Cambridge Local Plan – Toward 2014. The Committee considered the plan section by section.

 

Section 2

 

Dearbhla Lawson, Head of Transport & Infrastructure, and Jeremy Smith, Transport and Infrastructure Strategy Manager both from Cambridgeshire County Council were present and gave an update on the Transport Strategy. The City Council would be invited to respond to the consultation. Members noted that the delivery of  the Local Plan was dependant on the Transport Strategy.

 

       i.          If building is permitted on the Green Belt this would set a precedent and others would seek to do the same.

     ii.          Loss of Green Belt would result in the permanent loss of a means of food production. Adding text to reflect the use of Green Belt land for agricultural purpose was agreed.

 

Section 3

 

       i.          The increase in number for the station area was questioned. Officers confirmed that the plan had evolved and the site had been reviewed in line with identified needs and identified as an efficient use of land. The number of units suggested could change.

 

Section 6

 

Officers confirmed that work had been commissioned to look into the Affordable Housing thresholds. Findings would be reported to Full Council on the 27 June.

 

Section 7

 

       i.          The Committee did not oppose tall buildings but welcomed the policies in place to ensure high quality developments and amenities.

     ii.          In response to questions, officers confirmed that Policy 56 sets out criteria which could assist in deterring the development of gated communities.

   iii.          Concerns were expressed that the wording regarding open spaces in Policy 67 appeared to have changed and no longer required mitigation in the same area. Members sought confirmation that the wording would be amended to reflect the need to reprovide open spaces in local the area.

   iv.          Members requested an addition to Appendix C Section 7 of the plan to identify open spaces on a Ward by Ward basis.

 

Section 8

 

       i.          The Committee asked for additional wording to Policy 73 regarding sports facilities.

     ii.          It was noted that boundary changes had addressed previous concerns regarding the status of the Cambridge Leisure Park as a Local Centre.

   iii.          Adding a positive statement regarding sustainable transport options for deprived areas was suggested.

   iv.          The Committee discussed the merits of limiting parking spaces in new development and possible overspill problems this causes elsewhere. Councillor Ward confirmed that there had been a deliberate policy to discourage car use and added that the new plan is slightly more relaxed on this issue than the old plan.

 

The merits of residential developments with no parking were discussed. Jeremy Smith stated that the County Council Transport Strategy would examine this issue.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable.

Matter for Decision:  

This report presented a summary of the 2012/13 outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for services within the Planning & Climate Change portfolio, compared to the final budget for the year. The position for revenue and capital was reported and variances from budgets were highlighted, together with explanations. Requests to carry forward funding arising from certain budget underspends into 2013/14 were identified.

 

It was noted that outturn reports being presented in this committee cycle reflect the reporting structures in place prior to the recent changes in Executive portfolios. In light of those changes (together with the requirement to report outturn on the basis of portfolios in place during 2012/13) members of this committee are asked to consider the proposals to carry forward budgets and make their views known to The Leader, for consideration at Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee prior to his recommendations to Council.

 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

 

The Executive Councillor noted the views of the Scrutiny Committee regarding the following proposals, and resolved to make their views known to The Leader, for consideration at Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee prior to his recommendations to Council:

 

       i.          To carry forward £45,850 of revenue budgets from 2012/13 into 2013/14, as detailed in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

 

     ii.          To carry forward capital resources to fund rephased net capital spending of £160,000 from 2012/13 into 2013/14, as detailed in Appendix D of the Officer’s 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 Accountant regarding 212/13 Revenue and Capital Outrun, Carry Forwards and Significant Variances.

 

Members expressed satisfaction with the variants noted in the report.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable.

Matter for Decision:  

 

The report provided an update on progress during 2012/13 on actions to deliver the three strategic objectives of the City Council’s current Climate Change Strategy, which covered a five year period from 2012-2016. As part of this, the report included an update on progress in implementing the Council’s Carbon Management Plan 2011-2016. The Plan sits under the Strategy and plays a key role in achieving its first strategic objective, which is to reduce carbon emissions from the City Council’s estate and operations.

 

The report also provided an update on the current position of the Climate Change Fund, which provides support to projects that help to reduce the Council’s own carbon emissions and/or manage climate change risks to Council staff and property.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

       i.          Note the progress achieved during 2012/13 in implementing the Climate Change Strategy and the Carbon Management Plan.

     ii.          Note the Climate Change Fund Status 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 Strategy and Partnerships Manager regarding the Annual Climate Change Strategy.

 

Members expressed concern that the route optimisation figures did not provide clarity on any saving made.

 

In response to questions, it was confirmed that the Council are in discussions with Cambridge University about new carbon reduction technologies and options for the future.

 

The Committee resolved by unanimously to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable.

 

Russell Tame – Accordia Resident

 

Russell Tame addressed the Committee and made the following points:

·       The residents af Accordia would welcome the limited use of Article 4 for the following reasons –

·       Accordia fully meets the requirements of as it is exceptional and permitted development rights would be detrimental to the Scheme.

·       The site is self-contained.

·       The initial work has already been done and the principle of protection is welcomed.

·       The additional guidance would help resident to comply.

·     The residents of Accordia request that you act now before the integrity of the design is lost.

 

Matter for Decision:  

 

The Council has the option to use Article 4 Directions - a tool available to Local Planning Authorities in responding to the particular needs of their area. An Article 4 Direction withdraws certain Permitted Development rights and the effect is to require a planning application for development that would not otherwise need one. This report assessed the potential use of Article 4 Directions as it applies to public houses; to conservation areas; to Accordia; and more generally, to Buildings of Local Interest.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

The Executive Councillor resolved:

 

       i.          That the scheme of delegation is amended to enable the Head of Planning (in consultation with the executive Councillor for Planning & Climate Change, ESC chair and spokes) to make Article 4 Directions  in respect of public houses and BLI’s(Local Heritage Assets) where evidence suggests significant harm is possible through the exercise of permitted development rights.

 

     ii.          That the City Council Conservation team’s Pro-active Conservation programme include a phased programme (one per year starting post 2013/14) of introducing focussed Article 4 Directions for Conservation Areas where adopted appraisals have evidenced harm to these area's character or appearance or where specific requests are brought to the attention of the Executive Councillor for Planning & Climate Change.

 

   iii.          That officers draft an Article 4 Direction for the Accordia estate and an accompanying consultation process for the consideration of a future Environmental Scrutiny 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 briefing report from the Principal Conservation and Design Officer regarding Article 4 Directions and Consideration of their Use in Cambridge.

 

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

       i.          Concerns were raised about the wording of the recommendations. Recommendation a) did not include change of use, recommendation b) was vague and laced detail and recommendation c) was questioned regarding how well it met the criteria.

     ii.          Concerns were raised about the level of consultation of Accordia residents, the degree of support across all tenure types and future ability of the site to evolve and develop.

   iii.          Article 4 was a wide ranging legal tool and concerns were expressed that the current recommendations were not specific enough.

 

The Head of Planning Services agreed that this was new territory and that the purpose at this stage was to get a steer from members in order to take the project forward.

 

Members discussed the protection offered to Public houses and where this sat in the legal framework. Outside a conservation area Public Houses were vulnerable. Councillor Ward stated that, while a change of use did not negate the protection of a Public House little could be done once a building had been demolished.

 

The Chair invited the representatives from Accordia Housing to comment. Ian Cray stated that he could provide evidence that residents across the tenure types were supportive of the approach suggested. Residents would welcome a move to the next stage of the consultation process.

 

The Committee resolved to amend recommendation 2.1 b) of the Officer’s report to read as follows (additional wording in bold and underlined:

 

That a report be brought to the Committee as part of the City Council Conservation team’s Pro-active Conservation programme, a phased programme (one per year starting post 2013/14) of focussed Article 4 Directions for Conservation Areas be introduced where adopted appraisals have evidenced harm to these area's character or appearance or where specific requests are brought to the attention of the Executive Councillor for Planning & Climate Change.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the following recommendations:

 

       i.          That the scheme of delegation is amended to enable the Head of Planning (in consultation with the executive Councillor for Planning & Climate Change, ESC chair and spokes) to make Article 4 Directions  in respect of public houses and BLI’s(Local Heritage Assets) where evidence suggests significant harm is possible through the exercise of permitted development rights.

 

   iv.          That officers draft an Article 4 Direction for the Accordia estate and an accompanying consultation process for the consideration of a future Environmental Scrutiny Committee.

 

The Committee resolved 4 votes to 0 to endorse the following amended recommendation:

 

·       That a report be brought to the Committee as part of the City Council Conservation team’s Pro-active Conservation programme, a phased programme (one per year starting post 2013/14) of focussed Article 4 Directions for Conservation Areas be introduced where adopted appraisals have evidenced harm to these area's character or appearance or where specific requests are brought to the attention of the Executive Councillor for Planning & Climate Change.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable.

Matter for Decision:  

The Grafton West car park is the small multi storey next to the Grafton Centre and is accessed from Maids Causeway.

 

No cosmetic or structural maintenance has taken place within the car park since it was built in the early 1980s and it is therefore showing its age.

 

Some of the work is required to help protect the building structure; the remainder is to improve conditions for our customers. It is our intention that improving the environment will increase the perception of public safety and result in improved customer satisfaction.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

Financial recommendations –

       i.          Approved the commencement of this scheme, which is already included in the Council’s Capital & Revenue Project Plan (SC535).

·       The total cost of the project is up to £180,000 made up of: 

£110,000 funded from car parks structural R&R

                              £40,000 from car park equipment R&R and

£30,000 from the climate change fund

 

·       This climate change funding has been included in the Carbon management Plan which has been approved by Environment Scrutiny Committee in June 2012

·       A proportion of this project will contribute to reducing electricity costs due to installing energy saving LED lights.

·       Installation of CCTV cameras will help improve customer safety but will incur an annual monitoring fee of approximately £7,000. A separate bid will be made to

cover these costs in the budget round. CCTV cameras will not be installed until after funding for monitoring has been approved

 

Procurement recommendations:

     ii.          Approved the carrying out and completion of the procurement for a refurbishment of Grafton West car park.

 

Subject to:

·       The permission of the Director of Resources being sought prior to proceeding if the quotation or tender sum exceeds the estimated contract.

·       The permission from the Executive Councillor being sought before proceeding if the value exceeds the estimated contract by more than 15%.

 

Reason for the Decision:

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

Not applicable as no pre scrutiny was requested.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable.

Matter for Decision:  

The City Council has an obligation under Section 69 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to periodically review its Conservation Area designations and boundaries, to consider any new areas, and under Section 71 of the Act to formulate and publish proposals for the preservation and enhancement of these areas.

Brooklands Avenue

Earlier this year, the Council appointed consultants who have drafted an Appraisal of the Brooklands Avenue Conservation Area. The consultants propose an extension to the boundary of the Conservation Area at the same time. This draft Appraisal provides an up to date assessment of the ways that the Brooklands Avenue area meets current national criteria in terms of special architectural and historic interest for Conservation Area designation, and in addition concludes that sections currently outside the existing boundary are also worthy of inclusion.

A period of public consultation was held between 2nd April and 30th April 2013. The broad consensus of opinion was in favour of the proposals as outlined in the draft Appraisal.

 

Southacre Conservation Area

In 2013, consultants drafted an Appraisal of the Southacre Conservation Area. The Southacre Conservation Area was designated in 1998. This draft Appraisal provides evidence to illustrate that the Southacre Conservation Area still meets current national criteria in terms of special architectural and historic interest for Conservation Area designation.

A period of public consultation was held between 2nd and 30th April 2013. There have only been 3 responses to the consultation, possibly because there are no proposals to alter the boundary. These responses have been summarised in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report.

 

Newnham Croft Conservation Area

In 2013, consultants drafted an Appraisal of the Newnham Croft Conservation Area. The Newnham Croft Conservation Area was designated in 1998. This draft Appraisal provides evidence to illustrate that the Newnham Croft Conservation Area still meets current national criteria in terms of special architectural and historic interest for Conservation Area designation.

A period of public consultation was held between 2nd and 30th April 2013. There have only been 2 responses to the consultation, possibly because there are no proposals to alter the boundary. These responses have been summarised in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

       i.          Approve the Appraisal of the Brooklands Avenue Conservation Area which was attached as an Appendix to the Officer’s report and to agree the revised Conservation Area boundary.

     ii.          Agree the draft Appraisal of the Southacre Conservation Area which was attached as Appendix to the Officer’s report.

   iii.          Agree the draft Appraisal of the Newnham Croft Conservation Area which was attached as an Appendix to the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision:

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

Not applicable as pre scrutiny was not requested.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable.