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
Note: Agenda order change: Planning Portfolio items to be taken first.
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 13 January 2015 as a correct record. Minutes: The minutes
of 13 January 2015 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. |
|
Re-Ordering Agenda 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. |
|
Environment, Waste and Public Health Portfolio Plan PDF 78 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Officer’s report covered the draft Environment, Waste and Public
Health Portfolio Plan 2015-16, which sets out the strategic objectives for the
portfolio for the year ahead, describes the context in which the portfolio is
being delivered and details the activities required to deliver the outcomes and
the vision. Performance measures and risks are also shown for each strategic
objective. Decision of the
Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health Approved the draft Environment, Waste and Public Health Portfolio Plan 2015-16. 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 &
Environment; introduced by the Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and
Public Health. The Committee generally welcomed the Portfolio Plan principles. In response to Members’ questions the Executive Councillor said the
following:
i.
The timeframe for moving from the Mill Road Depot
site depended on finding an alternative location.
ii.
Having more Enforcement Officers should encourage
greater recycling for Houses in Multiple Occupation and target areas that
required action eg to address fly tipping.
iii.
There is an option to potentially charge for the
use of a rebuilt Silver Street toilet to offer an alternative means of reducing
costs. The Head of Refuse
and Environment and Team Manager (Commercial) said
i.
The intention behind the Healthier Catering
Commitment for Cambridgeshire (HCCC) project was to work with companies to
introduce healthier menus. A report will be made to Councillors when HCCC is up
and running.
ii.
HCCC was based on the London project. Take up was
limited in Cambridge, but it was hoped this would increase in the future.
iii.
HCCC would be launched as a pilot project in two
areas of the city.
iv.
Legislation regarding food safety applied to mobile
and static premises. Static premises would be inspected at their location,
mobile premises at the owner’s home. City Officers would investigate all
locations in the city.
v.
‘Vision Statement 2: To
increase the availability of healthier food alternatives to those who may
suffer increased risk of social exclusion’ linked into anti-poverty work.
Performance measure 2.2 is a starting point that can then be rolled out if
resources allowed. There were no extra resources within the team, resources to
date had been freed up by the Executive Councillor reprioritising work. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation. The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation. He thanked Officers
for their work to date and Former Councillor Swanson for starting the work. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|
Cambridge Air Quality Action Plan - 2015 to 2025 PDF 934 KB Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Officer’s
report described the current air quality in Cambridge, briefly summarised
recent activity to reduce the levels of airborne pollution and set out the
pathway and ambition for the next ten years, through a revised Air Quality
Action Plan (Appendix A). The Plan contributes to the Corporate Objectives, the
Local Transport Plan and contributes to the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment on
public health. It will be aligned with the City Deal. There is a
statutory requirement for both the City and the County Councils to work towards
reducing levels of air pollution under the Local Air Quality Management regime
(Environment Act, 1995, Part IV). Most air pollution
in Cambridge is caused by traffic, therefore the Plan is focussed on this, but
does include other measures that can be taken to effect a positive change. Air
quality will remain under pressure because of growth in and around Cambridge as
more people and jobs come to the area. Future improvement is dependent on
accelerating and stimulating the shift to ultra-low emission vehicles for both
private and public fleets with continued traffic restraint. The proposed Air
Quality Action Plan 2015 – 2025 contributes towards all three strands of the
Cambridge City Council Vision: · One Cambridge –
Fair for all. · Caring for our
environment and our people. · Creating a great
place to live, learn and work. The ambition of
the Air Quality Action Plan is for Cambridge to become a low emission city,
with clean fresh air for all residents, visitors and workers in the City. The
outcome must be to achieve compliance with national targets for air quality and
ensure that they are maintained. Decision of the
Executive Councillor for Environment, Waste and Public Health Instructed Officers to:
i.
Engage with stakeholders, such as Cambridgeshire
County Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, and partners, such as
local businesses, to develop the detail of the Air Quality Action Plan 2015 –
2025 and to implement the Plan over the next 10 years.
ii.
Report back to the Environment & Scrutiny
Committee with a completed Air Quality Action Plan and update on interim
progress in 12 months’ time (March 2016). 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 Environmental Quality &
Growth Manager. In response to the report the Committee asked if the Council could implement
a Single Transport Scheme through the City Deal program. The Executive
Councillor said strategic boundaries were being set now, operational details
would be covered later. In response to Members’ questions the Environmental Quality & Growth
Manager said the following:
i.
Noted Councillor’s comments that the Council
monitored air quality, but others had levers to improve it. However, the
Council could take improvement action such as applying for Central Government
funding to bring in low emission vehicles. A working group had been set up with
County Council and private sector colleagues to bid for funding to undertake
various work in future.
ii.
The ongoing growth in the greater Cambridge area
attracted more residents and more jobs, which could lead to increased traffic.
Roads were approaching maximum capacity so traffic levels could not rise much
more if further houses were built, but emission levels may rise.
iii.
The purpose of the proposed Air Quality Action
Plan, 2015 – 2025 was to reduce pollution across the city. It had been
declining in the city, but developments on the outskirts were pushing up
pollution levels there.
iv.
The Plan set out the future strategy and actions to
take in the face of new technology to achieve change and engage with
stakeholders. Work linked into other initiatives such as the City Deal and
20mph project.
v.
There is a mix of intermittent and continuous air
quality monitors around the city. The Environmental Quality & Growth
Manager undertook to provide Mill Road sensor figures to Councillor Robertson
in response to resident’s concerns. 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. |
|
Business Regulation Plan 2015-16 PDF 224 KB Minutes: 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 Business Regulation Plan needs
to clearly define the objectives allowing the Council to fulfil its
responsibilities for the year, and confirm that it has committed sufficient
resources to enable this work to be achieved. It also needs to be submitted to
the Council for their consideration and to have evidence of the formal approval
of the plan. The Plan is a large document and therefore this year an Executive
Summary has been produced as Appendix A which identifies all of the key aspects
of the full report, which is available to view in full, and if approved by
committee will imply approval of the full Plan. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Environment,
Waste and Public Health Approved the Executive Summary
of the Business Regulation Plan 2015-16, and by implication the full 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 Team Manager (Commercial). In response to Members’ questions the Team Manager (Commercial) said the
following:
i.
There were no Category A businesses in the city
(ref P58 of the Officer’s report).
ii.
(Ref P60 of the Officer’s report) A commercial
estate targeted intervention initiative was set by Food Standards Authority
guidance on standards such as how food based businesses were managed, stock
rotation and staff training.
iii.
It was expected that the circa 90% compliance
figures for inspected premises could be maintained through Officers offering
training and mentoring.
iv.
Training for businesses on hygiene, health and
safety etc could be a future source of income for the Council. 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. |
|
Planning Policy and Transport Portfolio Plan 2015/16 PDF 75 KB Additional documents: Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Officer’s report covered the draft Planning Policy and Transport
Portfolio Plan 2015-16, which sets out the strategic objectives for the
portfolio for the year ahead, describes the context in which the portfolio is being
delivered and details the activities required to deliver the outcomes and the
vision. Performance measures and risks are also shown for each strategic
objective. Decision of the
Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport Approved the draft Planning Policy and Transport Portfolio Plan 2015-16. 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; introduced by
the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport. The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Welcomed progress on City Deal negotiations.
ii.
Liberal Democrat Councillors regretted that
planning applications had moved from Area Committees to the Planning Committee. In response to Members’ questions the Executive Councillor for Planning
Policy and Transport said the following:
i.
The City Council Local Plan was at a key stage of
examination. Housing allocations have been well tested, but room for 2,000 more
homes may have to be found within the city limits.
ii.
South Cambridgeshire District Council was
experiencing higher demands for housing. They are a key delivery partner.
iii.
The City Council was confident it could meet Local
Plan requirements and that its planning policies were robust. iv.
There was a memorandum of understanding between
authorities and duty to co-operate across the county. If one partner could not
deliver, other organisations would have to cover the shortfall in housing
delivery.
v.
The City Council Local Plan included performance
targets to meet for major, minor and other planning applications. These were
being met. Councils who did not meet targets were penalised. The Head of Planning Services undertook to
send Committee Members performance information on the speed of processing
planning applications. vi.
The Executive Councillor would pass on Councillors’
requests for the City Deal Assembly to have alternate members as well as
substantive ones. 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. |
|
Citywide 20mph Project - Phase 3 Implementation PDF 10 MB Report to follow Minutes: Public Question Members of the public asked a number of questions, as set out below. 1. Dr Goyal-Rutsaert raised the following points: i.
Took issue with the
consultation basis and cost benefit analysis of the evidence base. ii.
Suggested that
residents should have been given more information on the impact that the 20mph
limit would have on them eg air quality. Suggested
that residents had been misinformed by consultation letter details. iii.
Referred to the
experiences of other local authorities such as Portsmouth. Local authorities
had not gained many benefits from imposing a 20mph limit, but had been affected
by high implementation and enforcement costs. The schemes were poor value for
money and led to higher levels of congestion and pollution. iv.
Suggested the
outcome of the consultation would have been different if people were aware of
all the facts. Requested the evidence base be reviewed. 2.
Mr Sewell raised the following points: i.
Unenforced laws
encouraged disrespect for the law. The speed limit should be 30mph as per the
existing law. ii.
20mph could
contribute to accidents and be more harmful to cyclists. iii.
Was unaware of any
adequate evidence to favour a speed limit of 20mph instead of 30 mph. iv.
Expressed concern
that the Police had asked for volunteers to help with enforcement action. v.
Had undertaken a
survey on Grange Road where the speed limit was 20mph already. This was not
observed by vehicles. vi.
Invited
Councillors to drive along Grange Road at 20mph prior to taking a decision to
change the speed limit to see the impact it would have. The Project Delivery & Environment
Manager responded to both members of the public: i.
Some initial evidence based work
had been undertaken by the Council to support the initial funding allocation
and involve key stakeholders in the 20mph scheme to get their views. The level
of detail involved was proportional to the scale of the project, and the
anticipated impacts. A key objective was to bring speed limit consistency
between Cambridge areas which were a mix of 20 and 30mph. ii.
Most roads affected were in
residential and commercial areas where typical average speeds were already
relatively low. iii.
Many of Cambridge’s C class roads
were wide and open in nature and likely to present more of a compliance
challenge. Therefore Councillors needed to consider which to include as
enforcement action was likely to be needed. The Police were happy to do this
where average speeds were low and roads complied with Department for Transport
guidance. iv.
Research showed the introduction
of a 20mph speed limit generally led to benefits with few disadvantages. The
cost of implementing area wide schemes could be quite significant but there
were clear benefits particularly in terms of consistency and safety. v.
The 20mph limit could be expected
to lead to an average reduction of 1-2mph, where the observed level of change
for the north of the city so far implemented was consistent with national
guidance. This, in turn, could be expected to lead to a 5-10% reduction in
casualty figures. vi.
This project was intended to
provide a largely self-enforcing speed limit.
Traffic delays were more influenced by junctions than the speed limit.
Many of Cambridge‘s streets were already congested, particularly at peak times,
so average traffic speeds were already relatively low and conducive to the
introduction of 20mph control. 3. Dr Goyal-Rutsaert and Mr
Sewell raised the following points:
i.
There
may be some benefits, but people may not be aware that the lower speed limit
may lead to higher transport costs (ie longer travel
times led to higher fuel bills) and increased pollution.
ii.
Took
issue with the concept of a self-enforcing scheme. iii.
Observed
that Officers had acknowledged that the expected impact of the 20mph speed
limit was limited as traffic was already slow due to congestion. Matter for
Decision To provide infrastructure (signs and lines) for a
new 20mph speed limit on the public highway across West/Central and southern
areas of the city. The new 20mph infrastructure would include
repeater signs mounted on existing lamp columns, and white coloured 20mph
roundel road markings. Entry into new 20mph limits would be via entry points
highlighted by larger 20mph terminal signs, roundel road markings and on more
main roads, patches of coloured road surface material. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport Implementation recommendations:
i.
Approved the inclusion of all unclassified
roads in the South and West/Central areas. ii.
Approved the inclusion of
the following ‘C’ Class roads: ·
Both north and south sections of Grantchester Road. ·
Castle Street. ·
Church Lane and Maris Lane in Trumpington. ·
Cherry Hinton High Street.
iii.
Include the following ‘C’ Class
roads, as recommended for inclusion by South Area Committee on 02/02/15: ·
Teversham Drift/Hinton Road
north of Church End, Cherry Hinton. ·
Cherry Hinton Road east of Walpole Road. ·
Queen Ediths’ Way east of
Mowbray Road.
iv.
Approved the exclusion of the following ‘C’
Class roads, as recommended by South Area Committee on 02/02/15 and
West/Central Area Committee on 05/03/15: ·
Brooklands Avenue. ·
Fulbourn Road. ·
Victoria Avenue.
v.
Supported work to encourage
the introduction of 20mph control in new developments on the City’s fringes. Financial recommendations:
vi.
Approved the commencement of the
implementation of Phase 3 (South and West/Central areas) of this scheme, which
is already included in the Council’s Capital & Revenue Project Plan. ·
The total cost is estimated to be £251,400 funded
from the 20mph project capital allocation SC532. ·
There are no on-going revenue costs for the
project. Procurement recommendations: vii.
Approved the carrying out and
completion of the procurement of: ·
Phase 3 Traffic Order making process including
street notices - £16,000. ·
Commencement of implementation of Phase 3 (in line
with the roads recommended for inclusion above) -£150,000. ·
Commuted sum maintenance contribution to
Cambridgeshire County Council for Phase 3 - £41,400. ·
Phase 3 post implementation automatic traffic count
(ATC) monitoring - £8,000. ·
Subject to: o
The permission of the Director of Business
Transformation being sought prior to proceeding if the quotation or tender sum
exceeds the estimated contract. o
The permission from the Executive Councillor being
sought before proceeding if the value exceeds the estimated contract by more
than 15%. Recommendations
from South (02/02/15) and West/Central (05/03/15) Area
Committees (as superseded by the implementation recommendations outlined
above): · Inclusion of all
unclassified roads in the south and west/central phase area. · Inclusion of the
following ‘C’ class roads: o
Teversham Drift/Hinton Road
north of Church End. o
Both north and south sections of Grantchester Road. o
Castle Street. o
Church Lane and Maris Lane in Trumpington. o
Cherry Hinton High Street. o
Cherry Hinton Road east of Walpole Road. o
Queen Ediths’ Way east of
Mowbray Road. · Exclusion of
the following C class roads: o
Brooklands Avenue. o
Fulbourn Road. o
Victoria Avenue. 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. He said the report contained a typographical error listing
“vi Cherry Hinton Road west of Walpole Road” instead of “Cherry Hinton Road
east of Walpole Road”. The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Residents had been involved in the consultation process, there had been expressions of support for a 20mph
speed limit. Key stakeholders eg the Cambridge
Cycling Campaign and Ambulance Service had expressed support for the 20mph
limit.
ii.
Speed limits currently varied across the city, this
scheme could standardise them to 20mph.
iii.
Recommended that the speed limit on new
developments be 20mph instead of 30.
iv.
Lowering the speed limit to 20mph would lead to safety
benefits. This outweighed cost implications.
v.
Costs may be charged to the City Council, but the
benefits would go to the NHS (ie lower accidents).
These came from the same public pot in effect.
vi.
Taxi fares should be unaffected as they were based
on distance not travel time. vii.
Congestion led to slow travel speeds in some areas
already, so the 20mph limit may have less impact in these areas. viii.
20mph could be enforced. It would be expensive to
do so and take time to change drivers’ behaviour, but a positive change was
expected. In response to Members’ questions the Project Delivery and Environment
Manager said there was conflicting evidence on the impact of 20mph on air
quality, with no clear advantages or disadvantages for a change from 30 to
20mph for an area such as Cambridge. Whilst vehicle born pollutants increase
with congestion, there were less emissions from
traffic consistently travelling at 20mph compared to varying speeds. A shift in
travel modes (eg walking and cycling instead of
vehicular) could be expected if people felt safer on the roads due to the lower
speed limit, with some consequent reduction in vehicle pollutants. Councillors requested a change to the Officer recommendations. Councillor
Smart formally proposed to amend the following recommendation from the
Officer’s report (amendments shown as bold and struck through text): · The Committee unanimously approved this amended
recommendation. The
Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendations as amended. The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations. He made the following points: i. Thanked the public speakers for their comments. These had raised the profile of the debate. ii. In 2012 the Council allocated £400,000 to the 20mph scheme subject to public support, this was generally received. This was a cross party decision across the Council. iii. Referred to the projects original aims and hoped these would lead to more walking and cycling. iv. The impact of the scheme could not be judged solely on the results in the north city area for just one year. v. The 20mph scheme should rationalise isolated 20mph zones into a consistent speed limit across the city. 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 PDF 128 KB Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Council has
recognised the need to change the way services are provided in the future in
order to create opportunities for innovation and provide service efficiencies. As
a result the Council has agreed to work in partnership with South
Cambridgeshire District Council and Huntingdonshire District Council to deliver
a number of shared services. The Council also
seeks to support economic growth within the area and as a consequence needs to
provide effective and efficient services. The building control service is
responsible for ensuring delivery of safe, healthy, accessible and sustainable
buildings; and operates within a commercial and competitive arena. 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 ability
to generate additional income from new services and efficiencies will also
support enhanced competitiveness. The Officer’s
report set out the strategic benefits and outline business case for a single
shared building control service for Cambridge City Council, South
Cambridgeshire District Council and Huntingdonshire District Council. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy
and Transport Agreed:
i.
The outline business case for
entering into a shared Building Control service with South Cambridgeshire and
Huntingdonshire District Councils.
ii.
That a fully developed business
case is provided to the Environment Scrutiny Committee on 7 July 2015.
iii.
That recruitment of an Interim
Shared Building Control Manager be authorised to help develop the full business
case and the design of the new service. 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 Building Control Manager. The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
The Council Building Control Shared Service was an
important service.
ii.
The business case to share services with other
councils had some merits, but the quality of the service should not be
compromised.
iii.
The service needed to be located near to customers
in order to be effective. Resilience and specialist services were also
important considerations.
iv.
Charging for the Building Control Shared Service
could be a source of income for the Council. In response to Members’ questions the Building Control Manager said the
following:
i.
The location of the Building Control Shared Service
would be reviewed in future. The intention was to place it so that Officers
could visit city and outskirt locations.
ii.
An options appraisal would be set out in the full
business case coming to 7 July 2015 Environment Committee.
iii.
Regulations and guidelines set fees that could be
charged for the Building Control Shared Service on a not for profit basis for
chargeable activities. 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. |