Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Committee Room 1 & 2, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ. View directions
Contact: James Goddard Committee Manager
No. | Item |
---|---|
Apologies To receive any apologies for absence. Minutes: No apologies were received. |
|
Declarations of Interest Members are asked
to declare at this stage any interests that they may have in an item shown on
this agenda. If any member of the Committee is unsure whether or not they
should declare an interest on a particular matter, they should seek advice from
the Head of Legal Services before the meeting. Minutes: No declarations of interest were made. |
|
To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 2014 as a correct record. Minutes: The minutes of 17 October 2014 meeting were approved and signed as a correct record. |
|
Public Questions Please see information at the end of the agenda Minutes: No public questions were asked. |
|
Report to follow Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Officer’s
report detailed the budget proposals relating to this Environment, Waste and
Public Health Portfolio that were included in the Budget-Setting Report 2015/16
to be considered at the following meetings:
i.
19 January 2015 Strategy & Resources.
ii.
22 January 2015 The Executive.
iii.
13 February 2015 Strategy & Resources.
iv.
26 February 2015 Council. The report also
included consideration of any recommendations concerning the review of charges
and project appraisals for schemes in the capital plan for this portfolio. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health Review of Charges:
i.
Approved the proposed charges for this portfolio’s
services and facilities, as shown in Appendix A to the Officer’s report. Revenue:
ii.
Noted the revenue budget proposals as shown in
Appendix B. Capital:
iii.
Noted the capital budget proposals as shown in
Appendix C.
iv.
Agreed to delete some schemes from the Capital Plan
as shown in Appendix C.
v.
Approved, where relevant, project appraisals as
shown in Appendix D. vi.
Agreed to adjust capital funding for items (iii) to
(v) as appropriate. 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 Principal Accountant. He
advised the Officer’s report (second agenda circulation, P6, Table 2) contained
a typographical error: The headings had been transposed so ‘Capital Deletions’
should read ‘Capital Bids’ and vice versa. In response to Members’ questions the Head of Refuse & Environment
said the following:
i.
All fees and charges (eg scrap metal P9 of the
Officer’s report) fell into two categories: · Statutory fees eg
Licensing Act. · Administration cost
for provision of the service, which was charged at ‘cost rate’ ie non-profit
making.
ii.
Changes to legislation in 2012 led to a review of
local authority Commercial Waste Service charges across the city.
iii.
The increased charges reflected increased disposal
charges for the City Council, which had taken over responsibility from the
County Council.
iv.
The £80,000 total increased income (P10 of the
Officer’s report) could be robustly defended as the harmonisation of the Commercial Waste Service's tariff structures was a
win-win for the City Council and customers.
v.
The City Council had increased co-mingled
recycling. The City Council also gave customers advice on how to reduce their
disposal costs. Disposal costs decreased as the City Council undertook more
co-mingled recycling.
vi.
Unavoidable revenue pressure items such as the North West Cambridge Collection vehicles
running costs (P11 of the Officer’s report) were included in the budget
report for the first time as part of North West Cambridge site waste /
recycling costs. vii.
Fluctuating oil prices had a dual impact on the
City Council. Lower oil prices meant: · Waste truck fuel
costs were lower. · The Council
receive less revenue from sales of recyclable waste. viii.
Officers were aware that the value of recyclable
waste varied. It was not practicable to store waste when sale values were low
in order to wait for them to rise as storing waste reduced its quality and
therefore its value. Quality and contamination rates were considerations for
officers.
ix.
The City Council was in partnership with all
Cambridgeshire authorities to get the best price for recyclable waste.
x.
Black bins were in high demand locally and
nationally. The Council had received various freedom of information requests
regarding bin provision costs. Officers liaised with residents requesting bins,
the replacement cost was determined by responses. For example, the cost of
replacing a damaged bin was lower than providing a second additional one.
xi.
To encourage recycling property owners could ask
for large bins to be replaced by smaller ones free of charge. xii.
Refuse crews had been asked to advise officers of
any damaged bins so they could be replaced before a property owner requested
this. In response to Members’ questions the Principal Accountant said projects
were formerly included on the capital plan before a project scheme document was
worked up. Under the “project under development” process projects would need a
business case to be written before being added to the capital plan. Projects
without a business case were grouped in the “under development” heading. The Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health gave
the Silver Street public toilets as an example of a project under development. The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 with 3 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. |
|
Stop Human Trafficking Poster Campaign PDF 80 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Public Statement From Ms Crofts Representing
Soroptimist International A
member of the public made the following points:
i.
Referred to the Executive
summary in the Officer’s report.
ii.
Thanked the Executive Councillor
for Environment, Waste and Public Health, plus Councillors for their support of
the Stop Human Trafficking Poster Campaign.
iii.
Soroptimist
International is a worldwide non-governmental organisation to educate women and
girls. One of its goals was to eliminate violence against women and girls. This
included stopping the trafficking of women.
iv.
‘Stop Trafficking’
posters had been provided to South Cambridgeshire and the City Councils.
v.
Material such as posters
had been produced to raise awareness of issues in communities. Information on
where to seek help was also provided.
vi.
Information posters were
put in toilets where they could be seen by women (without being observed) by
men who may be controlling them. vii.
Posters and stickers had
already been distributed by some local authorities. They had proved successful
so the campaign was being rolled out to Cambridge. viii.
More posters and stickers
could be provided upon request by 1 February 2015. Matter for
Decision The City Council
received a request from the Cambridge Branch of Soroptimist International to
erect its ‘stop human trafficking’ campaign posters in the Council’s female
public toilets for a fixed 6 month period, commencing 1 February 2015. The posters are
designed to help tackle the issue of human trafficking, with a particular focus
on female victims, who form over 80% of all trafficked people. The posters form
part of Soroptimist International’s Purple Teardrop Campaign, which is a global
campaign to stamp out human trafficking, especially sex trafficking. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health Approved the erection of
Soroptimist International’s Purple Teardrop ‘stop human trafficking’ campaign
posters in the City Council’s female public toilets for a fixed 6 month period,
commencing 1 February 2015 and ending 31 July 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 noted the report from the Head of Streets & Open
Spaces. The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Welcomed the stop human trafficking poster campaign
initiative,
ii.
Human trafficking was an important issue.
iii.
It would be helpful to have information from
Soroptimist International and the Police on how effective the posters were, so
they could be made more effective in future to extend the programme in any way
possible.
iv.
Suggested putting posters in unisex and female
toilets. Traffickers could be male and female.
v.
The campaign could link into Councillor Sinnott’s
anti-domestic abuse work.
vi.
Queried the need for three phone numbers (instead
of one) on the poster, but felt this was a matter for the poster organisers
rather than Cambridge City Council. Suggested including text information, as an
alternative to telephone calls. vii.
Suggested undertaking a men only campaign on a
different theme in future. In response to Members’ questions Ms Crofts said the following:
i.
The Council had suggested undertaking the campaign
on a six month basis. Soroptimist International would be happy if it could be
extended.
ii.
This was a women only campaign. A campaign for men
was a future consideration.
iii.
Three telephone numbers were listed on the Cambridge
poster as per the format used in Poole (Dorset) where the initiative was
trialled.
iv.
If trafficked women did not have access to a phone,
they could get information from the Police or Crimestoppers. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation. The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendation. He added that there would be a press release to
raise awareness of the initiative. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|
Re-Ordering Agenda Minutes: 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. |
|
Report to follow Minutes: Matter for
Decision The
Officer’s report detailed the budget proposals relating to the Planning Policy
& Transport Portfolio that were included in the Budget-Setting Report
2015/16 to be considered at the following meetings:
i.
19
January 2015 Strategy & Resources.
ii.
22
January 2015 The Executive.
iii.
13
February 2015 Strategy & Resources.
iv.
26
February 2015 Council. The
report also included consideration of any recommendations concerning the review
of charges and project appraisals for schemes in the capital plan for this
portfolio. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport Review of Charges:
i.
Approved the proposed charges for this portfolio’s
services and facilities, as shown in Appendix A of the Officer’s report. Revenue:
ii.
Noted the revenue budget proposals as shown in
Appendix B. Capital:
iii.
Noted the capital budget proposals as shown in
Appendix C.
iv.
Agreed to delete some schemes from the Capital Plan
as shown in Appendix C. v.
Agreed to adjust capital funding for items (iii)
and (iv) as appropriate. 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 Principal Accountant. The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Car parking costs were high profile press stories.
ii.
Car parks required (substantial) capital and
maintenance funding to keep them in good order. Sufficient capital should be
made available in the Capital Plan for this. In response to Members’ questions the Director of Environment and the Head of Specialist Services said the
following:
i.
A group
was being set up to jointly discuss County Council, City Council and
Park&Ride parking charges to influence users to pick the most appropriate
facility for the length of their stay. The intention was to better
co-ordinate/integrate prices.
ii.
Car
parks were of a certain age and needed substantial investment to run them. This
ensured they were secure, maintained to a good standard, with up to date
equipment.
iii.
Major
schemes were coming forward such as the Park Street Car Park refurbishment.
This refurbishment would need a lot of capital investment, and may lead to a
loss of revenue to the Council whilst it was not available for use.
iv.
A
detailed options appraisal for the future of Park Street Car Park would be
presented to councillors in summer 2015 (following on from details put to
Members in October 2014).
v.
Project
planning was undertaken for all projects. Supporting documents identified
resources required, these operating details were not generally included in the
strategic papers reported to scrutiny committees. The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions to endorse the
recommendations. The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations. He added that one of the disappointments of the
Joint Area Committee was a lack of coordination around setting parking charges.
This would be followed up in future as it used to occur October/November each
year. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|
Building Control Shared Service Business Case Investigation PDF 69 KB Minutes: Matter for
Decision A shared building
control service has the potential to be a more sustainable and resilient
business model for future service delivery and cost effectiveness. The City Council
has been asked to explore the benefits of joining the shared Building Control
Service already committed to by Huntingdonshire and South Cambridgeshire
District Councils. The Officer’s report sought approval to undertake that work. Decision of
Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport Agreed that the
viability and benefits of developing a shared Building Control Service should
be explored, and the business case and conclusions brought back to the scrutiny
committee at the earliest opportunity for consideration. 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. The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
The location of the shared Building Control Service
was an important consideration.
ii.
Welcomed the principle of exploring the business
case, it needed to be practicable.
iii.
Considerations for the service business case:
Resilience, cost and specialist knowledge. In response to Members’ questions the Head of Planning Services said the following:
i.
The Building Control Shared Service included
administration of Building Regulations and a statutory function of public
protection.
ii.
Fees for work did not include travel time, so this
would affect the choice of location for the service. The service was expected
to be located near to its customers.
iii.
An advantage of the shared service would be the
ability to market it to generate revenue. In order to be competitive,
Inspectors would need to be customer facing and not hindered by layers of
bureaucracy. The Director of Environment said the shared
service could be based in more than one location. Shared management and service
support was being explored to ensure resilience. 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. |