Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

 

None. 

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.

 

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Saunders	11/40/env	Personal: Member of Cambridge Past, Present & Future
Councillor Wright	11/40/env	Personal: Member of Cambridge Past, Present & Future

To approve as correct records the minutes of the meetings of the 15^th March 2011 and the special meeting of the 26^th May 2011.

The minutes of the 15 March and 26 May 2011 meetings were approved and signed as a correct record.

Members of the public asked questions under items 11/40/env and 11/45/env.

The committee discussed a proposal to move meeting start times. It was agreed that the committee would start at 4:00 pm for future meetings starting from 4 October 2011.  

Matter for Decision:

The officer’s report presented a summary of the 2010/11 outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for services within the Environmental and Waste Services portfolio, compared to the final budget for the year.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services:

(i)                Agreed all of the carry forward requests, totalling £23,860 as detailed in Appendix C of the Officer’s report, were 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 £80,000 from 2010/11 into 2011/12, as detailed in Appendix D of the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision:

As per Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

The Committee received a report from the Accountant (Services).

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations by 5 votes to 0. 

 

The Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services 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 Officer’s report set out improvements made to the Council’s response to winter gritting in 2010/11, and sought to strengthen this approach for 2011/12.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services:

(i)                Noted the approach taken during adverse weather conditions 2010/11.

(ii)              Supported the approach for 2011/12.

(iii)            Sufficient supplies be stocked at Mill Road next winter to enable bulk bags to be collected and/or shifted during the day after major snow falls are due next winter, to all city areas where local groups and residents offer to clear pavements, paths and cycleways, and which would not otherwise be cleared subject to officer review and a response from the Executive Councillor.

 

Reason for the Decision:

As per 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.

 

In response to member’s questions the Head of Streets and Open Spaces confirmed the following:

 

(i)                The City Council worked with community groups in order to distribute salt/grit. The intention was to expand the list of groups to work with.

 

The Head of Streets and Open Spaces undertook to confirm to Councillor Tucker the number of community groups waiting to receive salt/grit in future.

(ii)              The Officer noted Councillor’s wish to proactively contact community groups and individuals eligible to receive salt/grit, to ensure that they were aware that it was available for usage. Councillors were keen to support improved communication and community outreach concerning salt/grit availability.

 

City homes and large estates already received some assistance from Council teams. Priority was given to sheltered housing schemes as City Council employees would distribute grit/salt on their behalf. In other areas, neighbours were encouraged to help each other with grit/salt distribution.

 

The City Council aimed to provide information concerning adverse weather conditions by linking to snow guide information on the County Council website. Press releases were suggested as another communication tool option to consider in future.

 

It was suggested that Members in their Ward Councillor capacity could ensure local community groups were aware that they could access grit/salt.

(iii)            Salt/grit would be provided in builders bags thus giving flexibility to deliver different amounts of salt/grit to recipients according to need.

 

Salt/grit stored in builders bags could adversely affect grass verges they were stored on, but it was hoped that fast distribution would help to mitigate this.

(iv)            Noted Councillor’s comments about the need to store a suitable reserve of grit/salt. The shelf life of grit/salt in storage would be a factor that governed the amount of time grit/salt could be stored.

 

The City Council received grit/salt stocks from the County Council. Stocks could be re-ordered as quantities were distributed from the Mill Road Depot, but this was subject to County Council priorities for supply.

 

The Head of Streets and Open Spaces undertook to review the practicalities of maximising grit/salt storage at the Mill Road Depot.

 

Labour Councillors requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor Herbert formally proposed to add the following recommendation to the Officer’s report:

·        (New iii) 'That in addition sufficient supplies be stocked at Mill Road next winter to enable bulk bags to be collected and/or shifted during the day after major snow falls are due next winter, to all city areas where local groups and residents offer to clear pavements, paths and cycleways, and which would not otherwise be cleared subject to officer review and a response from the Executive Councillor.'

 

The Committee approved adding this recommendation unanimously.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations unanimously. 

 

The Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services 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: A review of the 1999 Mill Road and St Matthews Conservation Area Appraisal, and an appraisal for the potential designation of a new Conservation Area in Romsey were agreed as part of the 2009-10 Pro-active Conservation programme. A report on the review findings was presented to Environment Scrutiny in March 2011.

 

Due to a proposal to extend the Conservation Area boundary beyond the area covered by the review, a further period of public consultation was entered into following the March meeting.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable Transport:

Approved the revised Conservation Area boundary and the content of the draft Appraisal.

 

Reason for the Decision:

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

This item was not requested for pre-scrutiny by committee.

 

1.  Ms Fletcher addressed the committee and raised the following issues:

 

(i)                Did not support the inclusion of Brookfields Hospital site within the revised conservation area boundary and referred to representations made at the previous Environment Committee meeting.

(ii)             Observed that various developments had already been undertaken in the area.

(iii)           Felt the form of the development on the north side of Mill Road near to Brookfields Hospital was unsympathetic to the Conservation Area. This would lead to a change to the character of the area if the application went ahead.

(iv)          Queried if the form of the buildings were sympathetic to neighbours.

(v)             Observed that English Heritage had reviewed the hospital buildings in the 1990s and not found them of significant interest and that Tree Preservation Orders were in effect in the area, which gave them protection against removal.

 

The Senior Conservation & Design Officer responded that a consultation had been undertaken on the extension, and the Brookfield site was worthy of inclusion. Also that Conservation Area status did not preclude development.

 

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: City Council currently provides at no charge to its customers. Preapplication advice is an essential part of delivering a quality planning service, providing informal advice to applicants on the form, content and merits of future planning applications.

 

The Officer’s report sought approval for consultation with service users and key stakeholders on the establishment of a scheme of pre-application charging for Cambridge and also the fringe sites that straddle the City and South Cambridgeshire.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable Transport:

(i)                Approved the draft preapplication advice scheme and charging schedule for user consultation and the outcome of the consultation exercise be reviewed by Environment Scrutiny Committee in the autumn. The consultation exercise would be undertaken in parallel with South Cambridgeshire as it is proposed to cover the fringe sites that lie within both authority areas. Householder charges should be deleted from the paper prior to consultation

(ii)             Approved the proposed consultation would be for 6 weeks and would take place over the summer. Service users, fringe site parish councils in South Cambridgeshire, the County Council and key stakeholders would be consulted on the proposals.

 

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 supported Councillor Herbert’s request that Councillors be included in the consultation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations with an amendment that householder charges should be deleted from the paper prior to consultation.

 

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: Cambridge City Council has a statutory responsibility for the street naming of numbering of streets within its administrative area. The Officer’s report sought to implement a written policy for the street naming and numbering service.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable Transport:

Approved the adoption of the Street Naming and Numbering Policy, which included a new scheme of charges for the discretionary part of the service.

 

Reason for the Decision:

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

There was no debate on this item.

 

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 Officer’s report presented a summary of the 2010/11 outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for services within the Climate Change & Growth portfolio (now Planning & Sustainable Transport), compared to the final budget for the year.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable Transport:

(i)                Agreed all of the carry forward requests, totalling £51,150 as detailed in Appendix C of the Officer’s report, were 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 £879,000 from 2010/11 into 2011/12, as detailed in Appendix D of the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision:

As per Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

The Committee received a report from the Accountant (Services).

 

In response to member’s questions the Director of Environment confirmed the following:

 

(i)                The budget contained a 10% underspend this year.  The Officer noted this compared to the 5% underspend variance reported to the Executive Councillor for Environmental & Waste Services.

 

         Analysis of car park income was generally undertaken in July of each year, to provide a review of the current year, and budget predictions for the next.

 

          The Director of Environment undertook to provide Members with the quarterly car park income review figures when they became available

 

(ii)              Noted Councillor’s view that car parking income was traditionally under estimated, and that further resources could be allocated to schemes if more income was anticipated. However, the Officer felt that variation figures were within normal parameters.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations by 5 votes to 0. 

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable Transport 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.

Under the Act of Parliament governing appointments to the Conservators, the City Council could only make appointments for three-year terms but could change those appointments at any time during the three years.  The following representatives were appointed on 6^th October 2009:

 

Councillors Walker and Nimmo-Smith (Councillor interests)

Councillor Ward (riparian interests)

Mr Rod Ingersent (commercial operator interests)

Mr Roy Hardingham (boating interests)

Mr Luther Philipps (houseboat residents)

Mr Clive Brown (resident living close to the river)

Terms of office to run until 31 December 2012 

 

Following the resignations of former Councillor Walker, the Executive Councillor is asked to make to recommend of an alternative representative to Council for approval. The term of office will run until 31 December 2012.

Matter for Decision:

Under the Act of Parliament governing appointments to the Conservators, the City Council could only make appointments for three-year terms, but could change those appointments at any time during the three years.

 

Following the resignations of former Councillor Walker, the Executive Councillor was asked to make to recommend an alternative representative to Council for approval. The term of office would run until 31 December 2012.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable Transport:

Recommended Councillor Price as a representative to Council.

 

Reason for the Decision:

As per Agenda.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

Councillor Herbert proposed the nomination of Councillor Price as the Cam Conservators representative. 

 

Councillor Wright proposed herself as the Cam Conservators representative. 

 

The Scrutiny Committee recommended that Councillor Price be the representative until 31 December 2012 by 3 votes to 1.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable Transport 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.

Supplementary information is available at http://cambridge.gov.uk/democracy/ecSDDisplay.aspx?NAME=SD701&ID=701&RPID=23521053&sch=doc&cat=13028&path=13020%2c13021%2c13028

 

and

 

http://cambridge.gov.uk/democracy/ecSDDisplay.aspx?NAME=SD708&ID=708&RPID=23521176&sch=doc&cat=13028&path=13020%2c13021%2c13028

Matter for Decision:

Cambridge City Council obtained a grant from The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) of £100,000 to undertake a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) for Cambridge and Milton. It would provide an evidence base for developing policies in the Local Development Framework (LDF) and will also be a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. The information contained within the assessment would also be used for emergency planning purposes and as a starting point for the strategic surface water flood risk management of Cambridge. It would also be used as an evidence base to obtain further funding and prompt spending priorities amongst the partner organisations that participated in the SWMP.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable Transport:

(i)                Endorsed the content of the Cambridge and Milton Surface Water Management Plan for use as an evidence base for the Local Development Framework and as a material consideration in planning decisions.

(ii)              Endorsed the content of the Cambridge and Milton Surface Water Management Plan for use as an evidence base for obtaining funding and to influence maintenance priorities.

 

Reason for the Decision:

As per Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations:

1.          South Cambridgeshire District Councillor Mason addressed the committee and raised the following issues:

 

(i)                Water from South Cambridgeshire (Orchard Park) discharged into the City i.e. it did not follow political boundaries. Queried if this had been considered in the model.

(ii)             Orchard Park connected into the first public drain, and used an underground balancing facility for surface water drains in the local area.

(iii)           Queried if the study had taken into account existing surface water attenuation facilities in the area.

(iv)          Queried if s106 funding for the first public drain had transferred from South Cambs DC to the City Council.

 

The Sustainable Drainage Engineer responded:

(i / iii)     Information in the report modeled a 1 in 200 year event where man made drains would be ineffective due to the severe level of flooding.

(iv)      S106 funding has been received for the first public drain. This should be used over the next 3 years.

 

The Committee received a report from the Sustainable Drainage Engineer.

 

In response to member’s questions the Sustainable Drainage Engineer confirmed the following:

 

(i)                The report modelled the risk of surface water flooding away from rivers where watercourses could not cope with storm water etc from a severe flooding event.

 

The report was part of an overall examination of flood risk.

(ii)              The report was based on historic information and current LIDAR topographical information of the City and water through flow.

(iii)            Resources and specifications from Defra drove the report, which was modelled according to Defra guidelines. The report set out areas of risk linked to economic damage and numbers of properties damaged.

(iv)            The Cambridge and Milton boundary was designated by Defra. Two areas within this boundary, Kings Hedges and Arbury (combined) plus Cherry Hinton where looked at in more detail. Other areas will be modelled as further resources become available.

(v)              Sustainable Drainage systems (SUDS) should reduced the amount of surface run off water. SUDS are promoted in new developments as a practical intervention to reduce flooding.

 

The use of SUDS should minimize the risk of flooding in areas not modeled in the Surface Water Management Plan.

(vi)            The Surface Water Management Plan looked at new flood risk areas. It would feed into the County Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy that joined up flood risk information into an overarching document for the whole area.

(vii)          The purpose of the report was to provide robust evidence to seek the release of further Defra funding for identified flood risk priorities.

 

The Scrutiny Committee considered and endorsed the recommendations unanimously. 

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable Transport 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 Executive Councillor for Environmental and Waste Services and committee noted that a decision had been taken as per the Officer’s report that authorised the delegation to South Cambridgeshire District Council pursuant to the Local Authorities (Arrangements for the Discharge of Functions) (England) Regulations 2000.