Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Tunnacliffe, Ratcliffe and Sergeant.

 

Councillors Sinnott and Abbott attended the meeting as the Labour alternates.

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor TBC	XX/X/Env	Personal ...

 

No declarations of interest were made.

The minutes of the meeting held on 16 January 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

There were no public questions.

Matter for Decision

The report detailed the actions for improving areas of poor air quality in the city and maintaining a good overall level of air quality as outlined in the Cambridge Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP), 2018-2023.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre.

 

     i.        Approved the Cambridge Air Quality Action Plan 2018 – 23, as attached in Appendix A 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 Principal Scientific Officer.

 

The report highlighted the work of Cambridge City Council; Public Health England; Greater Cambridge Partnership and Cambridgeshire County Council which identified a range of actions from the Air Quality Action Plan (AQAP) and responsibility for ensuring they were progressed.

 

The identified actions fell in to three main categories;

•        Reducing local traffic emissions as quickly as possible to        meet national objectives;

•        Maintaining air pollutant levels below national objectives;

•        Improving public health by reducing population exposure to    air pollutants.

 

The AQAP had been prepared by the Cambridge City Council Environmental Health team under the direction, support and agreement of the AQAP Steering Group. The Steering Group would oversee the delivery of the plan when adopted.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Principal Scientific Officer; the Scientific Officer (Environmental Services) and the Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre said the following:

     i.        The report had been compiled in partnership with Cambridgeshire County Council, Greater Cambridge Partnership and Public Health England, all of whom had a part to play to improve air quality in the City

    ii.        It was not within Cambridge City Council’s gift to improve public transport as they were not the responsible authority.

   iii.        Cambridgeshire County Council and / or the Greater Cambridge Partnership had the power and duty to assess the state of air quality then action those proposed measures which included the improvement of public transport.

  iv.        The publication of the AQAP 2008 had led to substantial investment of public transport in the city. This had been based on the Euro Emissions Standards for Engines; upgrading buses from Euro 2 standard to a Euro 4 or 5. Regrettably, there had been a failure in the reduction of emissions between what had been set out on paper and what had occurred in real conditions. The upgrade should have led to a 50% reduction of engine emissions at the tail pipe leading to 25% decrease of nitro dioxide at the side of the road. However only a maximum of a 10% reduction had occurred.

   v.        Measurements of air pollutants were taken on Chesterton Road and Chesterton High Street on a monthly basis and sent for analysis. This included various locations in and across the city, such as Station Road and Addenbrooks.

  vi.        Non-traffic sources of air pollutants from domestic and commercial heating were a minority but a signification contribution to poor air quality in Cambridge.

 vii.        There were issues with the large medical research facilities being built in Cambridge as the preferred choice was to be energy independent. These sites were closely monitored with each planning application and further policies had been added to the AQAP to ensure an improvement in air quality.

viii.        Public consultation would take place for each action of the plan; extensive consultation had already taken place with various representatives from the taxi trade regarding the introduction of electric taxis. Part of the consultation process also included education and raising awareness to the public.

  ix.        Noted the comments sent in by Councillor Gillespie regarding electric car clubs which had significant benefits; the City Council and outside partners needed to encourage individuals to cycle in the city and ensure that those individuals felt safe when cycling.

   x.        Consultants had been appointed to undertake a study for a ‘clean air zone’ in the city which should be reported back to Committee in September.

 

The Committee (unanimously) endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor

 

The business plan contains exempt information during which the public is likely to be excluded from the meeting subject to determination by the Scrutiny Committee following consideration of a public interest test.  This exclusion would be made under paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

 

Matter for Decision

The report detailed the 3CBuilding Control 2018/19 Business Plan.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport

          i.             Approved the 3C Building Control 2018/19 Business Plan

         ii.             Delegated authority to the Shared Service Management

       iii.             Board to agree final amendments to the Building Control Business Plan in line with comments received from all partner individual Councils.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Scrutiny Committee resolved to exclude members of the public and the press from the meeting on the grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972

 

The Committee (unanimously) endorsed 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

The report detailed the 2018/19 Shared Waste business plan for approval.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Waste Services and City Centre.

 

          i.       Approved the 2018/19 Shared Waste business Plan.

         ii.       Delegated authority to the Shared Service Management Board to agree final amendments to the business plans in line with comments received form all partner individual Councils

 

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 Shared Waste Services.

 

The report highlighted the progress that had been made over the last year which had established and stabilised operational structures, controlled costs, and delivered on the objectives of the original business plans.

 

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

     i.        There had been approximately four or five long term absences at one time over a period of thirty days; some had since left the company or their health had improved.

    ii.        The collection crews consisted of a number of staff who were older and more experienced; the job was physically demanding and this did have an impact on those individuals over a prolonged period of time.

   iii.        Information was placed in the Council’s community magazine with the Customer Contact Centre phone number to report when the bins had not been collected. Resident Groups were also advised of the contact centre number which could be shared with residents.

  iv.        Collection times were regularly reviewed; it could be beneficial to bring the collection start time in line with South Cambridgeshire District Council at 6.00am, missing the rush hour traffic and bins returned before residents left for work.

   v.        Collection times to start later in the day would put pressure on the crews to empty their refuse trucks before the tip closed.

  vi.        Thanked the refuse crews and staff for their hard work over the winter months.

 

The Committee endorsed the recommendations by 5 votes to 0.

 

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

To consider the 2018/19 Greater Cambridge Planning Service Business Plan.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport

 

     i.        Approved the 2018/19 Greater Cambridge Planning Service Business Plan

    ii.        Delegated authority to the Shared Service Management Board to agree final amendments to the Greater Cambridge Planning Service Business Plan in line with comments received form all partner individual Councils.

 

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 Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development which referred to the strong working relationships between the partner organisations with the shared services increasingly supporting new ways of working, and the potential for greater efficiencies within the organisations particularly around the use of technology and modernisation

 

The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development said the following in response to Members’ questions:

 

     i.        There more staff in planning services at South Cambridgeshire District Council who dealt with a higher volume of planning applications per year; the types of applications were also different.

    ii.        The planning service costs of both the City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council shown in the report were made up of net costs; fees were set by Central Government and a series of charged services such as pre application advice. There was a difference in charges between the two authorities and service costs with direct service costs higher for Cambridge City Council.

   iii.        Ways of increasing income were being planned to reduce the net costs.

  iv.        Agreed that it was important that residents and businesses in the city did not feel that they were subsiding SCDC. This would be constantly reviewed but initially there would be an agreement of fixed costs for some services. 

   v.        The City Council had a programme of conservation area appraisals and would look to produce a management plan in conjunction with SCDC.

 

The Committee (unanimously) endorsed the recommendations..

 

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