Agenda and minutes

No apologies were received.

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 Monitoring Officer before the meeting.

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Ratcliffe	17/24/ENV	Personal: Council representative to the River Cam Conservators
Councillor Tunnacliffe	17/24/ENV	Personal: Council representative to the River Cam Conservators

 

 

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 17 January and 25 May 2017 as a correct record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 17 January and 25 May 2017 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Please see information at the end of the agenda.

There were no public questions.

Record of Urgent Decision taken by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport.

 

To note decision taken by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport since the last meeting of the Environment Scrutiny Committee.

 

 

 

The Committee noted the decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport taken on 10 March 2017 regarding Planning Application Fees.

Matter for Decision

 

To consider the Business Regulation Plan 2017/18

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environment and Waste

 

Approved the Executive Summary of the Business Regulation Plan 2016-17, 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 & Licensing).

 

The report outlined Cambridge City Council’s responsibilities for enforcing food hygiene and health and safety enforcement in its area, and was required to produce an annual plan clarifying how this would be achieved. The Business Regulation Plan needed to clearly define the objectives permitting the Council to fulfil its responsibilities for the year, and confirm that it had committed sufficient resources to facilitate this work.

 

There was no debate on the item.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

 

None were declared.

Matter for Decision

 

To note the shared waste draft annual report 2016/17.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre

 

Noted 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 Interim Head of Single Shared Waste Service which provided a background to the creation of the service in 2014 and how had it had since developed.

 

The Interim Head of Single Shared Waste Service acknowledged there were crews who were on different terms and conditions. It had been said that the terms and conditions of South Cambridgeshire District Council had more advantages for staff and City Council were welcome to transfer over.

 

The Committee and the Executive Councillor noted the report.

 

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 shared waste draft annual report 2016/17 and to present further analysis to the Shared Waste Board in three months.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre

 

     i.        Agreed to present further analysis to the Waste Board in three months, (costs, wider lessons learnt feedback, webaspex modelling review results, summary of complaints and commendations).

 

    ii.        Agreed that the learning points below, which represent a selection of those logged to date, are adopted or avoided in future change projects.

 

Adopt:

•      Varied and bespoke approaches to resident communications –this worked very well.

•      Standardised project management approach from the start.

•      Alternative approaches to crew consultation – maps were not suitable for all. Take more crew members off rounds to support the work.

•      ‘Walk through’ week 1 to pre-empt some of the logistical issues that could have been foreseen.

•      Wider stakeholder group eg housing, colleges, which may have picked up flats issues and challenged our assumptions.

•      Involve a 3CICT and Northgate rep from the start.

•      We took on extra resources to support changes; we supported our crews and residents this way and would do it again.

 

Avoid:

•      Testing the current software integration now (not possible before go-live but not ideal afterwards).

•      Doing day changes before software changes (necessary as these may not happen for another year, but not ideal).

•      Missing the learning loop on missed individual bins; involve the regular crews from the start.

 

Reason for the Decision

 

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

 

Not applicable.

 

 

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Chair of Committee advised that he had given permission to Councillors Roberts and O’ Connell to take part in the discussion on this item.

 

The Committee received a report from the Interim Head of Single Shared Waste Service which outlined the harmonisation of domestic bin rounds to ensure they were efficient and would help to achieve savings of £700k over three years. The collection arrangements in South Cambridgeshire District Council (SDCC) and Cambridge City Council (CCC) were different but the new rounds made the boundary invisible to the refuse vehicles; this meant that 82% of residents had experienced a change in day and / or sequence of bin collections which started on 27th February 2017.

 

Both the Interim Head of Single Shared Waste and Strategic Director reiterated that both Councils were sorry to any resident who had been inconvenienced during the changes. The service would continue to work hard to achieve the normal standard of service expected and learn from this change.

 

In response to the Member’s questions the Interim Head of Single Shared Waste Service and Strategic Director said the following:

 

     i.        Problems identified in the first few weeks included:

a)   Missing ‘collect and return’ or ‘assisted collection’ addresses. When missed, their re-collection was prioritised. An A- Z of those addresses had been collated to supplement the digital information available in cabs.

b)    Collection from flats had been a major problem.

    ii.        Flats were considered separate services and there were entire rounds dedicated to the servicing of flats. The service recognised that these dwellings had different needs to that of an individual property which had been taken into account during planning.

   iii.        Flats posed particular problems such as:

a)       Restricted access, such as vehicles parked in the wrong place or building work taking place for the entire block.

b)       There were different ways to access bin stores, from key fobs to electronic codes meaning the right means of access was not always possible.

c)        An Officer had been with engaging with management companies/agents on the service but some had chosen not to engage.

d)       If residents in a block of flats had received a letter concerning contamination it would not have been a ‘blanket mail’, but contamination had been spotted and all residents would be advised.

  iv.        Trumpington ward was a particular area where difficulties had been experienced; changes had not been made immediately due to issues with the data software used by Waste Services. Once the software had been changed, alterations to the round would be made. Until this time additional vehicles and crews had been sent out to try to negate these complications.

   v.        Acknowledged there been issues in the north of the City but changes had been made early on.

  vi.        As some routes had changed and some crews were entirely new, it meant for the first four weeks of weight and round duration data could not be relied upon or used as the basis for any significant changes.

 vii.        Circumstances beyond the Councils’ control (such as the closure of the A10) meant that the crews had to play catch up from the start of the week.

viii.        New crews and new rounds meant that the collection had not been as efficient as it could have been in the first instance. This was normal for this type of operational change.

  ix.        The crews had worked incredibly hard to learn the rounds but mistakes had been made and streets missed; this was a result of some rounds being too big, and some human error. Both the Strategic Director and the Interim Head of Single Shared Waste Service were confident the situation was improving all the time and reiterated the crews were doing a fantastic job.

   x.        Merging two different data sets had created problems nevertheless there had been no issue with the quality of data.

     i.        Confident in the figures shown in the Officer’s report as shown on page 99 of the agenda pack.

    ii.        Agency costs had increased but there had always been agency workers on the books which brings flexibility to the service and also helps long term recruitment.

   iii.        Currently two systems for complaints as residents should complain to their Council. The complaint would be sent to the Single Shared Waste Service.

  iv.        It was possible to extract data to the track the type of complaints received.

   v.        Agreed that the record of complaints could be shared with the Committee.

  vi.        Staff members had a right to comment on the service and would encourage individuals to talk to the management team first. A series of staff ‘drop in’ sessions had been arranged to encourage this communication. To publicly complain first could have a negative impact on those colleagues who were working hard to provide a good quality service.

 vii.        It was thought there was currently a two to three week lead time for delivery of a new bin.

viii.        It was important to plan for the right level of risk to the service and now the vehicle use was maximised the impact of any fleet problem could be bigger. The service was working with its contractors to ensure spaces were readily available.

  ix.        An early warning system was in place concerning traffic congestion / road closure to alert all crews.

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 requests to carry forward funding arising from certain budget underspends into 2017/18 were identified.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre

 

Resolved to request that the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources approved the following at the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee on 3 July 2017.

 

To carry forward requests of £394k capital resources from 2016/17 to 2017/18 to fund re-phased net capital spending, 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.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Principal Accountant (Services) The Officer’s report presented a summary of the 2016/17outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for services within the Environmental Services and City Centre portfolio, compared to the final budget for the year. The position for revenue and capital was reported and variances from budgets were highlighted, together with explanations. Requests to carry forward funding arising from certain budget underspends into 2017/18 were identified

 

The Chair thanked the Officer for a comprehensive report. There were no further comments.

 

The Committee resolved (unanimously) to endorse the recommendation.

 

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

 

To consider the 2016/17 outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for the services within the Planning Policy portfolio.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport

 

Resolved to request that the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources approved the following at the Strategy and Resources Committee on 3 July 2017.

 

    i.             Carry forward request for £11,230 revenue funding from 2016/17 to 2017/18, as detailed in Appendix C of the Officer’s Report.

  ii.             Carry forward requests of £3,096k capital resources from 2016/17 to 2017/18 to fund re-phased net capital spending, 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 Principal Accountant (Services) which presented a summary of the 2016/17 outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for services within the Environmental Services and City Centre, compared to the final budget for the year. The position for revenue and capital was reported and variances from budgets highlighted, together with explanations. Requests to carry forward funding arising from certain budget underspends into 2017/18 where relevant were identified.

 

The Principal Accountant said the following in response to Members’ questions:

 

     i.        The underspend of £47,111 on the taxi card service had been consumer lead.

    ii.        A review of the taxi card service was being undertaken in the current financial year (2017/18) but could not advise if the eligibility of those who qualified for a card would be looked at however would report back to the Committee on the matter.

 

The Executive Councillor noted an underspend had been reported the previous year on the taxi card service. He concluded that the users were there but could not be sure why the service was not being used.

 

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)

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

 

To consider the authorisation of Officers to negotiate and agree the terms and conditions of a new agency agreement between Cambridge City Council and Cambridgeshire County Council for the management of Civil Enforcement in Cambridge.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport

 

     i.        Resolved to delegate authority to the Parking Services Commercial Operations Manager in consultation with the Executive Councillor, Head of Finance and the Head of Legal Practice, to negotiate and agree the terms and conditions of a new agency agreement between Cambridge City Council and Cambridgeshire County Council, to enforce parking restrictions in City Council car parks and parking spaces covered by the City of Cambridge (Off-Street Parking Places) Order 2017.

    ii.        The delegated enforcement would include the recovery of penalty charges for a period of up to 5 years from 1 July 2017.

 

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 Parking Services, Commercial Operations Manager, which outlined the powers Cambridgeshire County Council had to enforce restrictions in the off-street car parking that belonged to the City Council. 

 

Since 2010, the County Council had enforced the City Council’s parking restrictions in relation to its off-street parking as the Council’s agent.  It was intended to renew this arrangement and therefore to enable the County Council to operate those powers as its agent for the City under a new Agency agreement. 

 

The Commercial Operations Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

 

     i.        To ensure a quality service from the County Council the new agreement proposed that quarterly meetings between the two local authorities would become monthly.

    ii.        City Council Car Parking Attendants independently observed the Enforcement Officers when present on site.

   iii.        Checks on parking bays for the disabled and blue badges were carried out on a regular basis by the Parking Enforcement Team. 

 

  iv.        Surplus and deficits shown in the yearly accounts were measured by the actual cost.

 

The Committee resolved (unanimously) to endorse 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.

Appendix 1 attached separately

 

Matter for Decision

To consider the approval of the Cambridge Historic Core Conservation Area Appraisal.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy & Transport

 

Approved the Cambridge Historic Core Conservation Area Appraisal incorporating the amendments asset set out in the Officer’s report appendices.

 

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 Conservation and Design Officer which followed an initial report to the portfolio holder and Environment Scrutiny Committee, followed by public consultation on the review of the Historic Core Conservation Area Appraisal carried out in February/March 2016.

 

Resident’s groups, Colleges, public bodies, and other organisations had been consulted over a six week period and the resultant detailed comments were set-out by respondent in appendix 1 of the Officer’s report together with Officer responses and proposed amendments to the appraisal.

 

The Principal Conservation and Design Officer and Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’ questions:

 

     i.        The work on the city’s open spaces was not solely a conservation issue but covered such topics as bio-diversity, ecology and the range of uses of the open spaces which should also be taken into account.

    ii.        The Community Services Scrutiny Committee would consider a Streets and Open Spaces Service Review and Development Strategy in July which would take into account open spaces in the city. 

   iii.        Officers would be working with a variety of outside bodies and members of the public on the planned review of public parks where conservation and preservation of the parks would be considered. 

  iv.        The Conservation Area Appraisal should be seen as being alongside the Local Plan which also made reference to the city’s open spaces.

   v.        Believed that the Conservation Area Appraisal should be kept separate due to size and level of detail of the document.

  vi.        Reference had been made in the Conservation Area Appraisal to the city’s open spaces and referenced Parkers Piece, Christ Pieces, Coe-Fen and Jesus Green as examples.

 vii.        Acknowledged the importance of the river which the Local Plan already referred to and acknowledged there were river related stake holders who needed to be consulted on a Conservation Area Management Plan.

viii.        Expected work to be undertaken on the Conservation Area Management Plan and the Spaces and Movement Strategy later in the year.

  ix.        The Spaces and Movement Strategy document would be an integral part when looking at parks and open spaces that would take planning into consideration.

 

Councillor Bick proposed and Councillor Tunnacliffe seconded an additional recommendation:

 

    ii.        Given the public affection for the City’s open spaces, to request individual conservation appraisal of the City’s major public open spaces to be subsequently incorporated into this and other applicable conservation area appraisals.

 

The additional recommendation was lost by 2 votes to 5.

 

The Committee resolved (unanimously) to endorse the original recommendations as set out in the Officer’s report.

 

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.

The appendix to the report 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

 

To consider the Business Plan 2017/18, for the Shared Building Control Service.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport

 

Approved the Business Plan 2017-18, for the Shard Building Control 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 Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

 

The report noted that the principles of the business plan had been approved at the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee on 13 July 2015.

 

There was no debate for this item.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

 

None were declared.