Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Saunders and Ward. Councillor Brierley was present as the alternate.

 

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Reid	14/34/Env	Personal: Chair of the Programme Oversight Group of Cambridge Retrofit

 

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 14 January 2014 as a correct record.

The minutes of meetings held on 14 January 2014 were approved and signed as a correct record.

Please see information at the end of the agenda

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

 

Mr Shailer raised the following points:

      i.          Spoke on behalf of the Friend of Coldham’s Common.

    ii.          Took issue with the fence around the common and the reasons for the original planning decision.

 iii.          Raised the following concerns regarding fencing:

·       The decision was taken by the Secretary of State.

·       Was not aware of any City Councillors visiting the site.

·       Fencing would lead to a loss of biodiversity.

·       Restricting access to the common.

 

The Asset Manager responded:

       i.          Stated that the Secretary of State had raised no concerns regarding the consultation or planning process.

     ii.          Officers had given (Councillor Reiner’s predecessor) the Executive Councillor for Arts, Sports and Public Places reassurances that the statutory process had been followed.

   iii.          The Executive Councillor for Arts, Sports and Public Places had agreed to stop current works and made a commitment to further consult to inform a new management plan. The consultation process ended on the 28^th February 2014.

Text of petition:

 

“We, as user of the common, citizens of Cambridge and common rights holders, object to and will oppose:

 

1.    Any grazing that takes place on Coldham's Common Barnwell Road end also known as the Local Nature Reserve (LNR).

2.    Any additional unnecessary fencing that is placed on the common here or anywhere else.

 

We ask that the Council support us by confirming:

 

1.    That no grazing will take place on the Coldham's Common LNR.

2.    That the kissing gates will remain removed to allow easy access to the site.

3.    That the extensive lengths of unnecessary fencing are removed here and elsewhere on the common (but that the Council will not waste further large amounts of money on contractors; and will reuse or recycle any materials as far as possible).

4.    That the common is managed properly by a management plan with genuine consultation and with our and others legal rights to access and enjoy it unspoilt.”

 

Under the Council’s procedure the petitioners may present the petition and speak for five minutes. Members of the Committee may then discuss the petition for a maximum of fifteen minutes.

Ms White and Ms Galliard presented a petition regarding fences, gating and grazing on Coldham's Common. Ms White and Ms Galliard addressed the committee in support of the petition.

 

The Executive Councillor for Public Places made the following comments regarding the petition:

i.                 Thanked Ms White and Ms Galliard for submitting the petition.

ii.               The process was stopped by the previous Executive Councillor so a consultation exercise could be undertaken. A report would come back to Environment Scrutiny Committee in July 2014 to address points 1-3 of the petition (grazing, kissing gates and unnecessary fencing).

iii.             Petition point 4 (management plan) was covered under the Public Places Portfolio item

 

In response to Members’ questions the Asset Manager said the following:

       i.          Consultation finished 28 February 2014. Eighty of the respondents volunteered to engage as key stakeholders for further consultation once a draft report was written. Responses through the website and from the key stakeholders would be incorporated into the final report.

     ii.          Options in the management plan would reflect consultation results, nothing had been decided yet.

   iii.          A wide number of people on both sides of the railway tracks that bisect the Common were consulted regarding access, safety, fencing, sports and play facility provision.

   iv.          The Asset Manager undertook to provide the petitioners with a written version of consultation responses.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report covered the draft Public Places Portfolio Plan 2014-15, which sets out the strategic objectives for the portfolio for the year ahead, describes the context in which the portfolio was being delivered and detailed the activities required to deliver the outcomes and the vision. Performance measures and risks were also shown for each strategic objective.

 

The Executive Councillor for Public Places stated the report introduction had been amended to include references to the Bereavement Service. These details were added to the report after publication due to a change in Executive Councillor Portfolios.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Public Places

Approved the draft Public Places Portfolio Plan 2014-15.

 

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 Interim Head of Services, Streets and Open Spaces; introduced by the Executive Councillor for Public Places.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Executive Councillor for Public Places said the following:

Strategic Objective 1.4

       i.          The local nature reserve website gave details on how people could volunteer at local nature reserves.

     ii.          Conflicting ‘wants’ was a delivery risk that needed to be managed. These could be addressed on a case-by-case basis using a robust consultation process.

 

Strategic Objective 2.3

       i.          The riverside was an important amenity that should be accessible to all, not just boat users.

     ii.          The Council was committed to having a moorings policy in place.

   iii.          The Executive Councillor for Public Places acknowledged that residents had expressed concerns regarding the moorings policy process and their ability to influence it.

   iv.          The consultation process may generate conflicting responses. The Executive Councillor hoped that people could be brought on board and their expectations met / balanced / managed through the process.

 

Strategic Objectives 3.1& 3.2

    v.          It was difficult to quantify capital delivery risks, but preliminary discussions showed that appropriate resources were in place.

 

The Interim Head of Services, Streets and Open Spaces said that interim staff were in place, so this may be a delivery risk.

 

Councillor Kightley said that the City and County Councils needed to work together to deliver the capital programme.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Director of Environment and the Asset Manager said the following:

Strategic Objectives 3.1& 3.2

         i.          A tree consultation workshop occurred in 2013. A range of options were now in development as a result. The public would be consulted on the options in spring/summer 2014. A report on potential policies to address issues would be brought to Environment Scrutiny Committee in October 2014.

       ii.          The Local Centre Proposal (a planning event between officers and architects) would inform work relating to Mitcham’s Corner and the programme of future centres.

 

Strategic Objective 4.1

     iii.          Tourism had to be environmentally and financially sustainable to be considered ‘sustainable’. The City Council was working towards cost neutral tourism services. If this was achieved, Cambridge would be the first council in the country to do so.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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 Officer’s report covered the draft Environmental and Waste Services Portfolio Plan 2014-15, which sets out the strategic objectives for the portfolio for the year ahead, describes the context in which the portfolio was being delivered and detailed the activities required to deliver the outcomes and the vision. Performance measures and risks were also shown for each strategic objective.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental & Waste Services

Approved the draft Environmental and Waste Services Portfolio Plan 2014-15.

 

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 Head of Refuse and Environment, introduced by the Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services.

 

The Executive Councillor referred to a typographical error in paragraph 3.1 (P61) of the Officer’s report. This was the fourth, not third; year in which Cambridge City Council has produced Portfolio Plans.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Executive Councillor for Environmental & Waste Services said the following:

EW 2.3

       i.          The new pest control service should be in place by July 2014. A support process for those needing financial assistance to pay for a commercial pest control operator would be in place from July. No gap was expected between the end of the old service and start of the new.

 

EW 3.5

     ii.          The City Council would have to look at a cost/benefit analysis of implementing its own grass cutting service if it was unable to work with the County Council to develop a sustainable policy on highway grass cutting in the City. The intention was to maintain a dialogue and try to undertake joint work. The City Council was unable to raise a levy to cover costs (unlike a parish council) to financially support the service.

 

The Director of Environment said the City and County Councils had a joint interest in co-operating to provide a highway grass cutting service. Resources were needed in the right place at the right time. Grass cutting arrangements were being discussed to manage risks.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Refuse and Environment said the following:

       i.          The Council had been successful in increasing the amount of trade waste it collected, which therefore reduced the amount of waste going to landfill.

     ii.          It was hoped that the launch of the commercial food waste collection service from the start of the 2014 financial year would lead to a further reduction in waste going to landfill.

   iii.          Undertook to provide Councillors with waste collection figures after the Committee.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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 purchase and replacement of life expired vehicles and items of plant and equipment as per the Vehicle Replacement Programme PR017.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental & Waste Services

Financial recommendations

       i.          Approved the commencement of the 2014/15 Vehicle Replacement programme (PR017) which is already included in the Council’s Capital & Revenue Project Plan.

·       The total cost of the project is £563,500, funded from R&R funds.

·       There are no on-going revenue cost implications arising from the project.

 

Procurement recommendations:

     ii.          Approved the carrying out and completion of the procurement of the Vehicle Replacement  programme (PR017) for 2014/1 subject to:

·       The permission of the Director of Business Transformation 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

The Committee received a report from the Head of Refuse and Environment.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Refuse and Environment said the following:

       i.          Officers adhered to a number of specifications when purchasing vehicles, such as emission levels. Depreciation costs were also considered.

     ii.          Vehicle replacement costs were included in the vehicle replacement programme.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved 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.

Matter for Decision

Cambridge City Council is required to achieve savings of £6.3M over the next four years.  The refuse and environment service has been looking at a whole range of options to:

 

·       Identify realisable savings.

·       Reduce the amount of waste sent to landfill.

·       Increase the percentage of waste re-used or recycled.

·       Improve or maintain the customer experience.

 

The City Council offers a chargeable large item / bulky waste service using in-house collection staff and two link-tip vehicles. These employees are also used to staff a commercial ‘skip’ type service, using the same vehicles.

 

There are a total of thirty one link-tip bodies for the combined bulky waste and commercial service.  It is felt that both vehicles need to be retained as, they are specialist vehicles and it is unlikely that a hire vehicle can be sourced when the other vehicle requires maintenance / servicing.

 

This bulky waste service collects items that are too big to fit in a wheeled bin or are unsuitable to be disposed of in this manner.  Under the Controlled Waste Regulations 1992, bulky waste is classed as household waste for which a charge for collection may be made. This is a service that the council has statutory obligations to provide, but it is a service that could be provided by a contractor or third party. 

 

The service review identified four alternative service delivery options for the bulky waste collection service.  These are set out in the table below.

 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental & Waste Services

Approved the procurement of the collection and disposal of the bulky waste collection service to a suitably qualified social enterprise, charitable organisation or furniture re-use organisation in line with Option 3 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 Head of Refuse and Environment.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Refuse and Environment said the following:

       i.          Different contractors were interested in taking different items eg furniture or electrical. Soft market testing would be undertaken prior to the start of the contracting process to see if contractors would take all types of items or just certain types, thus clarifying if one or more contractor would be needed for the Bulky Waste Service.

     ii.          The Council was legally obliged to check that contractors took waste to designated disposal points.

   iii.          The Council had good working relations with organisations around the city to reduce waste going to landfill.

   iv.          The Council was looking at how the bulky waste service could be brought back in-house as a contingency plan in case of possible difficulties with a future contractor(s). Risks and options would be reviewed over the next six months.

    v.          No staffing losses were expected through the proposal to change in-house bulky waste services to an external contractor(s).

   vi.          The Head of Refuse and Environment undertook to look at ways to get contractors to pass on items for recycling to another third party if the contractor making the collection were unable to recycle items.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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 Bring Bank service covers banks which the council provides at public recycling points around the city.  At present there are twenty five sites, four of which are at supermarket car parks, fourteen on council land and seven on miscellaneous other sites.

 

The recycling points offer residents a recycling outlet for a range of materials such as textiles, that cannot be recycled through the kerbside scheme, as well as segregated banks for paper, glass, cans and certain plastics, all of which are now collected at the kerbside.

 

There is a dedicated Council vehicle which collects the segregated materials from these sites. The other material banks are emptied by contractors.

 

Prior to the introduction of the blue bin scheme, this vehicle also collected segregated recyclate from flats and colleges.  However, almost all of these collections have now been changed to the commingled blue bin collections.

 

This vehicle is currently not fully utilised and operational savings could be achieved if the banks at public recycling points were changed to commingled banks and the vehicle taken out of service.

 

The additional income generated from the sale of segregated materials is no longer sufficient to offset the cost of running a dedicated vehicle.

 

Sorting capabilities of Materials Recycling Facilities (MRF) have improved over the years so that it is now possible to generate high quality recyclate from commingled materials.  Improved glass-sorting technology enables mixed glass to be sent to glass-sorting facilities for sorting by colour, so that more of it can be used to make glass bottles.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental & Waste Services

       i.          Approved the changing of segregated recycling banks at public recycling points in the City to commingled banks, in order to make the collections more efficient and reduce costs.  This changed service to commence from the end of September 2014.

     ii.          Approved the use of the existing containers, with new labelling explaining that all materials can subsequently be recycled in one container.

 

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 Refuse and Environment.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Refuse and Environment said the following:

       i.          Twenty five sites across the city would provide co-mingled recycling facilities.

     ii.          Materials no longer needed to be separated into different bins for recycling at their collection point. Advances in technology means that the sorting capabilities of MRFs have improved so that it is now possible to generate high quality recyclate from commingled materials.

   iii.          The Head of Refuse and Environment acknowledged that the commingling of waste at recycling sites could be seen as a step back, but assured the Committee this was not the case. To manage expectations and signpost facilities around the city, the Head of Refuse and Environment undertook to:

·       Issue press release details, which would be copied to Ward Councillors. Also general information regarding facility sites and the rationale for commingled recycling.

·       Set up a tour of MRF facilities for councillors and members of the public. Tours of MRF facilities were currently available to the public on the first Tuesday of each month at Amey Cespa's Waterbeach facility.

   iv.          The commingling of waste should reduce the number of bins residents needed to use at the Bring Banks. Residents could bring their waste to recycling sites in large cardboard boxes (when appropriate) as these could also be recycled at the twenty five sites.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved 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.

Matter for Decision

Cambridge City Council is responsible for food hygiene and health and safety enforcement in its area, and is required to produce an annual plan clarifying how this will be achieved. The plan also needs to be submitted to the Council for their consideration.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental & Waste Services

Approved the Commercial Team Business Regulation Plan 2014 / 2015.

 

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 Refuse and Environment.

 

The Committee welcomed the report and thanked the Team for their efforts. Currently (end of January 2014), 92.4% of food businesses were meeting their obligations at the time of the initial inspection, rising to 95.5% after a re-score.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Refuse and Environment said the following:

       i.          The Food Hygiene Safety Enforcement Profile and Food Hygiene Rating Scheme were two food service / preparation scoring schemes that ran in parallel.

     ii.          Low risk premises were inspected less frequently than high risk ones. This was a Government requirement through statutory regulations.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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 Officer’s report covered the draft Planning and Climate Change Portfolio Plan 2014-15, which sets out the strategic objectives for the portfolio for the year ahead, describes the context in which the portfolio was being delivered and detailed the activities required to deliver the outcomes and the vision. Performance measures and risks are also shown for each strategic objective.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change

The Executive Councillor is recommended to approve the draft Planning and Climate Change Portfolio Plan 2014-15.

 

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 Head of Planning Services, introduced by the Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services.

 

The Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services read out a statement on behalf of the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change, who apologised for not being present at the meeting as he was on leave.

 

The Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services said she would listen to the Scrutiny Committee's deliberations on Planning and Climate Change matters; then communicate afterwards with of the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change to inform the decisions within his portfolio that he would make on his return from leave.

 

The Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services would not speak for the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change, nor take decisions for him at the Scrutiny Committee.

 

In addition to any direct communication from the Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services, the Scrutiny Committee minutes would be drafted and provided to the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change to inform him of deliberations as quickly as possible to avoid delaying decisions needing to be made. The Director of Environment would also report back Scrutiny Committee proceedings to the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Planning Services said the following:

       i.          Long term staff sickness had been an issue for the Planning Enforcement Service, but the Team would be fully staffed in future.

     ii.          More proactive enforcement work could be expected in future, specifically the next two months, but a lot had been done to date.

   iii.          Local performance indicators would be revised in future.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services undertook to inform the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change of the Scrutiny Committee decision.

 

 

 

Post Meeting Note 19 March 2014

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change on 19 March 2014

Approved the draft Planning and Climate Change Portfolio Plan 2014-15.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation in accordance with the Officer recommendation and the committee vote.

 

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

To carry out a five-year programme of essential structural repairs to the car park structure, repairs to the car parks impact barriers, drainage repairs and refurbishment of the lift, including associated specialist technical and tendering support and supervision.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change

Financial recommendation

The Executive Councillor is asked to approve the commencement of this scheme, which is already included in the Council’s Capital & Revenue Project Plan.

·       The total cost of the project is estimated to be £580,000 over five years, funded from Repairs and Renewals

·       There are no on-going revenue implications arising from the project.

 

Procurement recommendations

The Executive Councillor is asked to approve the carrying out and completion of the procurement of essential structural repairs to the car park structure, repairs to the car parks impact barriers, drainage repairs and including associated specialist technical and project management support to specify and supervise the repair works over the next five years to the value of £580,000.

 

Subject to:

·       The permission of the Director of Business Transformation 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

The Committee received a report from the Head of Specialist Services.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Specialist Services said the following:

       i.          The report covered expected maintenance costs for the Queen Anne Terrace Car Park over a five year period. Options could be reviewed after this period, such as further maintenance or redevelopment of the site.

     ii.          Most repair work would be undertaken at the start of the five year period, work outside of this period was unlikely to be justified at present. Annual inspections would be undertaken to monitor the state of the car park. A cost / benefit analysis would need to be undertaken for work outside of the planned five year period.

   iii.          Various proposals for mixed site use had been made over time, such as roofing the top deck so it could be used by a diving club. These were not mentioned in the Officer’s report as no proposals had been made recently. However, short and medium term maintenance was required to safeguard the car park for a further five years.

   iv.          Usage of the Queen Anne Terrace Car Park has grown consistently over the past five years. The car park is well used at most times, and very busy at weekends.

 

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

 

The Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services undertook to inform the Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change of the Scrutiny Committee decision.

 

 

 

Post Meeting Note 19 March 2014

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change 19 March 2014

Financial recommendation

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

·       The total cost of the project is estimated to be £580,000 over five years, funded from Repairs and Renewals.

·       There are no on-going revenue implications arising from the project.

 

Procurement recommendations

Approved the carrying out and completion of the procurement of essential structural repairs to the car park structure, repairs to the car parks impact barriers, drainage repairs and including associated specialist technical and project management support to specify and supervise the repair works over the next five years to the value of £580,000.

 

Subject to:

·       The permission of the Director of Business Transformation 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%.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations in accordance with the Officer recommendations and the committee vote.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.