Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillor Pogonowski. Councillor Kightley send his apologies for the first part of the meeting and Councillor Saunders took the Chair for minute items 12/29/ENV to 12/35/ENV. Councillor Brierley (present for minute items 12/29/ENV to 12/35/ENV) and Councillor Herbert were present as alternates. 

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.

Councillor	Item	Interest
Saunders	12/38/ENV	Personal: Member of Cambridge Past, Present and Future
Saunders	12/44/ENV	Personal: Member of Transitions Cambridge
Reiner	12/46/ENV	Personal: Uses Park Street Car Park
Reiner	12/38/ENV	Personal: Members of Cambridge Past Present and Future Personal: Members of English Heritage
Reid	12/44/ENV	Personal: Member of Close the Door
Reid	12/38/ENV	Personal: Members of Cambridge Past Present and Future
Ward	12/45/ENV	Personal: Is currently a Cam Conservator

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 13 March 2012 as a correct record.

 

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 24 May 2012 as a correct record – item to follow.

The minutes of the meeting of the 13^th March 2012 meeting were approved and signed as a correct record. 

Mr Rees addressed the committee.  Details listed under item 12/45/ENV.

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:  

To agree a summary of the 2011/12 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 2012/13 were identified.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environment and Waste Services:

              i.      Agreed the carry forward requests, totalling £76,610 as detailed in Appendix C, are to be recommended to Council for approval.

            ii.      Agreed to seek approval from Council to carry forward capital resources to fund rephased net capital spending of £469,000 from 2011/12 into 2012/13, 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 the Revenue and Capital outturn, Carry forwards and Significant Variances.

 

Members noted Appendix C item 1 had been incorrectly listed in this portfolio and should be within the Community Development & Health portfolio and so, following approval at Council, this carry forward will be transferred to Community Development & Health budgets for 2012/13.

 

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:  

In February 2012 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) announced a fund of £250 million to support local authorities to introduce, retain or reinstate a weekly collection of residual household waste.

 

Cambridge City Council had submitted an outline bid for a weekly food waste collection from flats under the third criterion (as detailed in the report), but seeks approval to continue with the submission. 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

              i.      Approved the continuation of the submission of the bid for funding for a weekly food waste collection for flats.

            ii.      Agreed to include in the forthcoming budget cycle a capital bid funded by the external grant, plus revenue implications for five years funded for the first three years by the external grant.

          iii.      Agreed to include in the forthcoming budget cycle a revenue bid for the continuation of the scheme beyond the initial five year.

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 regarding a bid for funding to the Department for Communities and Local Government under the Weekly Collections Support Fund.

 

The committee made the following comments in response to the report:

 

              i.      It was regrettable that installing macerators in kitchens had proved to be unviable due to cost and impact on local sewage systems.

            ii.      The City would need to meet the costs in years four and five and impacts on budgets were discussed. If the bid was approved, it would go through a budget cycle.

          iii.      Members welcomed the possibility of an additional service to flat dwellers and expressed regret that offered this to all residents would be too expensive.

 

The committee resolved unanimously 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:  

In September 2011 the University of Cambridge submitted outline planning applications to Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils for a mixed-use extension to the north-west of Cambridge. The waste management strategy for this site proposes the use of underground banks for the collection of waste and recycling from residential premises.

 

The scheme had been selected based on the desire to minimise the visual impact of waste collection infrastructure on the proposed development, and meets the requirements of the Area Action Plan to incorporate innovative waste strategies.

 

It was anticipated that the scheme would provide both South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council with an innovative yet practical waste management solution maintaining the potential for recycling and allowing scope for future change within the restrictions of an underground scheme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environment and Waste Services:

 

              i.      Agreed the principle of the use of an underground banks collection system for the Cambridge North West development for all residents across both South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City districts.

 

            ii.      Agreed to delegate authority to the Head of Refuse and Environment the development of an Inter Authority Agreement between Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, that the City Council will undertake waste and recycling collections across the entire Cambridge North West development including those areas within the South Cambridgeshire District Council administrative boundary for agreement by the Executive Councillors of both districts.

 

          iii.      Agreed to delegate authority to the Head of Refuse & Environment to comment upon the final waste strategy in conjunction with South Cambridgeshire District Council and submit them to JDCC for consideration.

 

         iv.      Agreed to delegate authority to the Head of Refuse and Environment to finalise, in conjunction with South Cambridgeshire District Council, the ‘above baseline’ costs of service delivery, which will be recovered from the developer through a Section 106 agreement for agreement by the Executive Councillors of both districts.

 

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 Waste Services Development Officer regarding the Waste Plans for the North West University Site.

 

Members raised the following points:

              i.      Members were concerned about the logistics of the new collection vehicle.

            ii.      Members asked for clarity on the economies that could be achieved by using a single waste collection services for the cross boundary site.

          iii.      The innovations presented were welcomed.

 

The committee resolved unanimously 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:  

Streets and Open Spaces ran an Apprenticeship Scheme in Environmental Cleansing during 2011.  12 young people were given the opportunity to join the scheme.  8 completed and attained the full educational achievements available under the scheme.  1 apprentice has gone on to secure full time employment within the cleansing team.

 

This report highlights the success of the scheme and recommends that the scheme is undertaken again in 2012.

 

It is requested that receipts from Fixed Penalty Notices be used to part fund the scheme to the value of £9000. The further £21,000 funding required will be met from existing staffing budgets.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environment and Waste Services:

        i.      Agreed to note the achievements of the Apprentice scheme that ran in 2011.

      ii.      Approved a further scheme for 2012.

    iii.      Approved the use of receipts from Fixed Penalty Notices to the value of £9000.

 

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 Environmental Cleansing Apprenticeship Scheme.

 

Members welcomed the proposal and expressed the hope that is scheme would be permanent. The Officer confirmed that this was the intention subject to their being a suitable partner agency.

 

The committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendation as amended.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

Not applicable. 

Matter for Decision:  

Approval of the Trumpington Road Suburbs and Approaches Study. 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environment and Waste Services:

Approved the text of the Trumpington Road Suburbs and Approaches Study, attached as Appendix 2 of the report, and agreed that the study be used to inform planning decisions in this area.

 

Reason for the Decision:

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

Not applicable.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

Not applicable.

Matter for Decision:  To approve the Appraisal of the Castle and Victoria Road area of the Central Conservation Area attached as Appendix 2 of the report and to agree the revised Central Conservation Area boundary.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

              i.      Agreed the summary of responses to the public consultation on the draft Appraisal of the Castle and Victoria Road area of the Central Conservation Area.

            ii.      Approved the Appraisal of the Castle and Victoria Road area of the Central Conservation Area attached as Appendix 2 and to agree the revised Central Conservation Area boundary.

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 Joint Urban Design regarding the Conservation Area Boundary Review and Appraisal for Castle and Victoria Road.

 

Members were satisfied that residents living in the area had been fully consulted and supported the proposal.

 

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:  

To agree a summary of the 2011/12 outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for services within the Planning and Sustainable Transport portfolio, compared to the final budget for the year. The position for revenue and capital is reported and variances from budgets are highlighted, together with explanations. Requests to carry forward funding arising from certain budget underspends into 2012/13 are identified.

 

It should be noted that the report reflects the reporting structure in place prior to the recent changes in Executive reporting responsibilities.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

              i.      Agreed  the carry forward request for £30,270 as detailed in Appendix C of the report, is to be recommended to Council for approval.

            ii.      Agreed to seek approval from Council to carry forward  capital resources to fund rephased net capital spending of £135,000 from 2011/12 into 2012/13, as detailed in Appendix D of the 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 for the Accountant regarding the 2011/12 Revenue and Capital Outturn, Carry Forwards and Significant Variances.

 

Members questioned the unexpected swings of income and expenditure related to growth sites and the impact this had on staffing costs. The Head of Planning responded and stated that planning fee income budgets are set following discussions with developers and their best estimate of when developments would proceed. However, this was not an exact science.

 

The committee resolved by 4 vote 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:

Approval of the project to improve the safety of the Perne Road/Radegund Road/Birdwood Road roundabout for cyclists and pedestrians.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

Financial recommendations:

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

      ii.      The total cost of phase 2 of the project was £103,000.00 funded from the Capital Joint Cycleway Programme (PR007).

    iii.      There were no ongoing revenue implications arising from the project, as maintenance will be the responsibility of Cambridgeshire County Council.

 

Procurement recommendations:

   iv.      This scheme would be procured direct from the County Councillor’s compliantly procured contractor.  If the project estimate exceeds the estimated contract value by more than 15%, the permission of the Executive Councillor and the Director of Resources will be sought before proceeding.

 

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 Projects Manager regarding the Perne Road / Radegund Road Cycle Safety Scheme.

 

Members raised concerns that the consultation process may have steered respondent in to one direction. Members welcomed two stage approach to this project.

 

The committee resolved unanimously 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 project is to improve the surfacing and lighting of Downham’s Lane to adoptable standards. The route was seen as an important cycle/pedestrian link between Milton Road, Campkin Road and the Manor School. The link would become a public right through the completion of a public path creation agreement between Cambridgeshire County Council and the three current landowners.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

Financial recommendations –

              i.      Approve the commencement of this scheme, which was already included in the Council’s Capital & Revenue Project Plan.

            ii.      The total cost of the project is £80,000 funded from the Capital Joint Cycleways Programme (PR007).

          iii.      Implementation is subject to the adoption of the route as public highway by Cambridgeshire County Council.

         iv.      There are no ongoing revenue implications arising from the project due to its proposed adoption by Cambridgeshire County Council as Highway Authority.

 

Procurement recommendations:

          v.      This scheme will be procured direct from the County Councillor’s compliantly procured contractor.  If the project estimate exceeds the estimated contract value by more than 15%, the permission of the Executive Councillor and the Director of Resources will be sought before proceeding.

 

Reason for the Decision:

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The committee resolved by 7 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendation as amended.

 

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 explained the processes by which decisions on planning and development briefs could be taken by area committees from 1 July 2012, and seeks Executive Councillor approval to adopt these processes.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

              i.      Approved the Principles for involving Area Committees in Decisions on Planning and Development briefs set out in Appendix A of the report; and

            ii.      Agreed to request that the Council’s constitution be amended to reflect Appendix A of the 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 Planning regarding the Devolving Decision Making To Area Committees – Planning And Development Briefs.

 

Members made the following comments:

 

              i.      Councillor Herbert expressed concern that the policy was inflexible, poorly worded and overly bureaucratic. He was concerned that embedding such a details proposal in the constitutions would lead to problems later on.

            ii.      Some members felt it was unfair that West Central Area Committee would be making decision on the City Centre issues.

          iii.      Likewise West Central Area Committee would be funding City issues that would benefit all residents.

         iv.      A strategic overview of decisions was needed and this should involve all Councillors.

           v.      Concern was expressed about inconsistencies in where decisions were taken. Some small decisions are taken centrally while much larger decisions were revered to Area Committees.

 

Councillor Reiner proposed an amendment to Appendix A, paragraph 2 of the report, as follows:

 

(Where cross-ward  cross area committee boundary proposals are involved; or proposals related to major schemes involving more than 250 dwellings or 10,000m² of other or mixed floor space the default pre-scrutiny process will include presentation to the Area Committee(s) but the final recommendation will be from Development Plan Scrutiny Sub-Committee to the Executive Councillor).

 

The amendment was agreed nem com.

 

The committee resolved by 4 votes 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 Cambridge Local Plan 2006 was the principal development plan document guiding development in the City. The Plan was prepared in the context of a national planning regime that has now been superseded by the Localism Act 2011 and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012). In the absence of up to date Local Plans the NPPF will become increasingly important in determining local planning decisions.

 

Whilst the review of the Local Plan is well underway, the Cambridge Local Plan, two Area Action Plans and six Supplementary Planning Documents had been reviewed to establish the extent to which they are compliant with the NPPF. The results show that there was significant overall compliance with the NPPF. Appendix A of the report provided a written statement and accompanying appendix to demonstrate this position.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

               i.      Approved Appendix A which demonstrated Local Planning Policy Compliance with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

            ii.      Agreed that this is made available on the Council’s website as the City Council’s position in relation to the National Planning Policy Framework.

          iii.      Noted this position for decision making purposes.

 

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 Planning Policy Manager regarding the Cambridge Planning Policy Compliance With The National Planning Policy Framework.

 

Members made the following comments:

              i.      Concern was raised that there appeared to conflicts within the policy documents. The Officer confirmed that other policies and guidance would allow case by case decision to be agreed.

            ii.      The inclusion of a policy on  Public Houses was welcomed

 

The committee resolved unanimously 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:  

              i.      The new Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan replaces the previous strategy which covered the period 2008-12, and would set the framework for action by the Council to address climate change over the next five years.

            ii.      The Carbon Management Plan forms part of the Strategy and details how the Council would further reduce carbon emissions from its own operations and estate over the five year life of the strategy.

          iii.      The Climate Change Fund criteria needed to be revised if the Fund is to support the projects that will deliver these reductions in emissions.

         iv.      The Climate Change Fund Annual Status Report provides financial details of the projects supported by the Fund to date.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

              i.      Approved the draft Climate Change Strategy (Appendix A of the report) for public consultation from May to September.

            ii.      Approved the draft Carbon Management Plan (Appendix B of the report).

          iii.      Approved the revised Operational Guidelines for the Climate Change (Appendix C of the report).

         iv.      Approved the Annual Climate Change Fund Status Report (Appendix D of the 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 Corporate Strategy regarding Cambridge City Council’s Climate Strategy and Carbon Management Plan.

 

Members made the following comments:

              i.      All committee reports contain an Environmental Impact Assessment and members would like to see officers using this to explain how any adverse environmental impacts of a proposal or decision could be mitigated.

            ii.      Concern was raised that the tone of the report was self-congratulatory when the reality is that little successes had been achieved on the council’s own emissions.

          iii.      Concerns were raised about the how robust the figures were.

         iv.      The number of positive press releases over the last year had put pressure on officers to suggest they were achieving good results.

           v.      Members were concerned that human error had resulted in two large omissions in the data and that once those elements had been taken into account, the results were less positive than initially thought.

         vi.      Transitions Cambridge held a recent event looking at best practice in this area and members expressed the opinion that officers should consult such groups.

 

The Head of Corporate Strategy responded and expressed regret for the error. Members were assured that the baseline figure was now as robust as it could be, bearing in mind that some of the data for some sites was based on estimated bills. Officers had a invested lot of time into checking the figures after the errors had come to light.  Considerable successes had been achieved in certain areas such as planning policy and the council’s housing stock; for example, achieving building Code Level 5 at the North West Cambridge site.

 

The committee resolved by 4 vote 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. 

Public Speaker

Clive Rees - Crabtree BC X-press BC, Chairman CRA boathouse committee, addressed the committee and raised the following points:

• Speaking on behalf of rowers and other interested parties.
• History of Conservators goes back to an ancient Act of Parliament.
• Charges were made for using the locks.
• Advent of the railways changed river usage to mainly recreational use.
• 1922 majority of appointments were City Councillors.
• Current situation: River users pay but have little say in regulations.
• New structure of Cam Conservators would be welcomed.

 

Matter for Decision:

 The terms of office for the seven Conservators of the River Cam appointed by the City Council end on 31 December 2012.  The report explained how the City Council had previously gone about appointing to the Conservators and how that should change following a review requested by the Executive Councillor.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

              i.      Agreed to instruct officers to arrange an open and public process for seeking applications for some of the City Council appointments to the Conservators of the River Cam (para 4.1 of the Officer’s report)

            ii.      Agreed that the composition of the seven appointees is three city councillors and four members of the public (para 4.2 of the Officer’s report).

          iii.      Agreed that the criteria which applies and the application process is as set out in (para 4.4/4.5 of the Officer’s report).

         iv.      Agreed Council appointees will be required to sign up to the Council’s Code of Conduct (para 4.6 of the Officer’s report)

           v.      Agreed that the maximum term of office is normally for 3 x three year terms with thereafter a break period of three years before a re-application can be made.  This rule should apply retrospectively. (para 4.7 of the Officer’s report)

         vi.      Agreed that a four member panel would consider applications make recommendations to the  Environment Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 9 October 2012. Details of the panel would be agreed b the Chair and Spokes.

 

Reason for the Decision:

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change introduced the report.

 

Members discussed the status of former Councillor, Ian Nimmo-Smith, who was appointed to the Cam Conservators as a Councillor and was not required to resign this post.

 

An active recruitment process, using the Cam Conservators contact list was welcomed. Complaints had been received in the past about the perceived secret nature of the selection process and any future selection process should be as open and transparent as possible.

 

Members debated the number of Councillor appointments proposed. Councillor Merchant-Daisley stated that appointments should be proportional and therefore, either 2 or 4. She proposed the following amendment to the recommendations:

 

To agreed that the composition of the seven appointees is two city councillors and five members of the public.

 

The committee rejected the amended recommendation by 4 votes to 4 and the Chair’s casting vote.

 

The committee was reminded that other public bodies, such as the Environment Agency and the County Council had representatives on the Conservators . However, public members, while drawn from interest groups, were not there to represent those groups but rather to protect the interests of all parties.

 

The selection process of public members was discussed. A suggested additional recommendation to allow a selection panel to short list potential applicants was abandoned. Members were concerned that rejecting applicants in public would be uncomfortable and would discourage potential applicants.  

 

Members agreed that a selection panel of 4 members should be formed to meet in private and review all applications received. The panel would then make recommendations to the committee for final decision. The Executive Councillor requested that the process at the Scrutiny Committee be sufficiently open and transparent, but respected the Scrutiny Committee's view that if their was a need to debate any applicant's merits that it is done in closed session. It was agreed that the Scrutiny Committee would not be bound by the recommendations of the selection panel.

The final details on the composition of the selection panel to be agreed by the Chair and Spokes.

 

Councillor Ward proposed the following amendments to the recommendations:

 

v) To agree that the maximum term of office is normally for 3 x three year terms with thereafter a break period of three years before a re-application can be made. This rule to apply retrospectively.

vi) A four member panel would consider applications make recommendations to the  Environment Scrutiny Committee at its meeting on 9 October 2012. Details of the panel would be agreed b the Chair and Spokes.

 

The committee agreed the amendments by 4 votes to 0.

 

The committee resolved to endorse the recommendations as amended by 4 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

Not applicable. 

 

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

Not applicable. 

It is recommended that the committee resolves to exclude the press and public during any discussion on the exempt version of the report by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2006, as it contains commercially sensitive information.

Matter for Decision:  

A report has been commissioned to examine viable options for the future of Park Street multi-storey car park. The report responds to a brief to consider the business case for refurbishing the car park and examines the potential and implications of alternative redevelopment of the site.

Park Street is the closest and most convenient car park to the restaurants and pubs on Bridge Street, Quayside and Riverside and is used by visitors for shopping, leisure facilities and for other City Centre services. The car park and cycle parking provision is an important facilitator of footfall in the area. Within the Car Park is the largest cycle park in Cambridge, and public toilets on the ground floor are directly accessible from Park Street.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change:

 

              i.      Agreed to note the Review report.

            ii.      Agreed to  the principle to consult the public and stakeholders about the options to refurbish, or to redevelop the Park Street car park, including demolishing the existing car park and replacing it with a new multi-story car park with either 250 or 125 parking spaces.

 

          iii.      Agreed to carry out detailed feasibility studies to validate the assumptions in the main report to determine whether underground car parking is a realistic and cost effective proposition in view of ground conditions and other factors, prior to consultation.

 

         iv.      Agreed to carry out detailed feasibility studies to determine whether re-provision of a new multi-storey car park, with or without underground car parking, is a realistic and cost effective proposition in view of, ground conditions and other factors, prior to consultation.

 

           v.      Agreed to investigate in more detail what measures could be applied to mitigate the effects of a closure of the car park during the construction period, prior to consultation.

 

         vi.      Agreed to undertake limited remedial repairs to the car park in the interim to ensure that it is safe and secure in the short to medium term, whilst assessing the options.

 

       vii.      Agreed to delegate authority to the Director of Environment in consultation with the Executive Councillor in the light of the findings of the feasibility studies to carry out a public consultation exercise to determine the best option and report the results to the Council in due course.

 

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 regarding the Future of Park Street Services. Member agreed to keep the discussion to the public papers and did not exclude the press and public.

 

In response to Member’s questions the Director of Environment and the Head of Specialist confirmed the following:

 

                i.      Technical solutions were available to allow underground provision near the river to be waterproof.

              ii.      The impact of the businesses in the area during any refurbishment had been considered and alternative provision would be arranged.

 

Councillor Reiner proposed the following amendment:

 

DELETE paragraph 2.2 and REPLACE with the following (amended language underscored):

 

2.2 To agree the principle to consult the public and stakeholders about the options to refurbish, or to redevelop the Park Street car park, including demolishing the existing car park and replacing it with a new multi-storey car park.

 

INSERT the following:

 

2.4 To carry out detailed feasibility studies to determine whether re-provision of a new multi-storey car park, with or without underground car parking, is a realistic and cost effective proposition in view of its positive impact on the City Centre road network, ability to meet peak demand, impact on local traders and the local economy, ground conditions and other factors, prior to consultation.

 

Councillor Marchant-Daisley suggested that the amendment would steer the consultation process towards a replacement car park. She suggested that a radical approach should be adopted with the aim of reducing car use and achieving a greener city center. Councillor Herbert supported this point of view and suggested that an integrated traffic solution, using Park and Ride and considering a one-way system, was a better option. Concerns were expressed that this decision and would leave a long-term legacy for the City.

 

Concern was expressed that loss of a car park would drive people out of Cambridge and increase general road usage as they would drive to alternative locations.

 

The Director of Environment stated that radical solutions had been considered. Consultant work to date had identified a need for a car park in this area. A one-way system could be modelled giving due consideration to the needs of buses.

 

Further changes to the amendment, to take into account the issues raised were discussed and the following was proposed:

 

DELETE paragraph 2.2 and REPLACE with the following (amendments underscored):

 

2.2 To agree the principle to consult the public and stakeholders about the options to refurbish, or to redevelop the Park Street car park, including demolishing the existing car park and replacing it with a new multi-storey car park with either 250 or 125 parking spaces.

 

INSERT the following:

 

2.4 To carry out detailed feasibility studies to determine whether re-provision of a new multi-storey car park, with or without underground car parking, is a realistic and cost effective proposition in view of, ground conditions and other factors, prior to consultation.

 

The committee unanimously approved the amendments to the recommendations.

 

The committee resolved unanimously to endorse the recommendation as amended.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

Not applicable.

Councillor Herbert requested a later start time for future meetings to allow members with work commitments to attend.

 

Councillor Reid stated that the meetings calendar spreads the meetings across different times of the day to allow members to make choices. She suggested that this decision should be referred to Civic Affairs.

 

The Director of Environment stated that daytime meeting offered more efficient use of officer time.

 

The committee agreed to a 5.00pm start for the remainder of the municipal year.