Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Monthly calendar > Election results by party > Agenda and minutes
Venue: Council Chamber, The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ [access the building via Peashill entrance]. View directions
Contact: Democratic Services Committee Manager
No. | Item | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Pounds, Councillor Herbert
attended as alternate. |
|||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 15 March 2022 were approved as a correct
record and signed by the Chair. |
|||||||||||||
Appointment of Vice-Chair (Tenant/Leaseholder Rep) for 2022/23 and introduction of Tenant and Leaseholder Representatives Minutes: Diana Minns was appointed Vice-Chair Tenant Representative
for Municipal Year 2022/23. |
|||||||||||||
Public Questions Minutes: There were no public questions. |
|||||||||||||
Estates & Facilities Compliance Update PDF 152 KB Additional documents: Minutes: This item was
chaired by Diana Minns (Vice Chair) Matter for
Decision The report provided an update on the compliance related
activities delivered within the Estates and Facilities Team, including a
summary on gas servicing, electrical testing and fire safety work. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing i.
Noted the current position of the Council regarding Compliance
and the progress of ongoing associated works. 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 Property Compliance and Risk Manager. The Property Compliance and Risk Manager and the Head of Housing
Maintenance and Assets said the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
Cadent are the supplier for the gas assets (meters)
at Kingsway, Princess and Hanover Courts. Inspections had been carried out
where meters had not yet been removed.
ii.
Electrical testing should be carried out every 5
years. Thought there would be an 18-month time lag to be up to date with
testing due to the pandemic and delays experienced in gaining access to
properties to be able to carry out testing / inspections. There were a number
of work streams which would feed into this report for example kitchen upgrades
and wholescale electrical improvements. Confirmed that officers were still seeking
to ensure that gas and electrical testing was done at the same time as gas
checks were currently at 100% compliance, whereas electrical testing had a
slightly lower compliance rate. Also confirmed that the letter process for
electrical checks would be changed to be more in line with gas letters.
iii.
The compliance rate for the electrical testing
10-year programme stood at over 85% as access to undertake checks had been
difficult as a result of the pandemic. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation. The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendation. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|||||||||||||
Minutes: This item was
chaired by Diana Minns (Vice Chair) Matter for
Decision As part of a programme of energy efficiency improvements to the
Council's existing housing stock it was planned to procure contractor(s) to
install various measures including external wall insulation, cavity wall
insulation, ventilation upgrades and solar PV panels to Council properties in
various locations. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing i.
Approved the issue of tenders and authorised the Director of
Neighbourhoods and Communities to award a contract(s) to a contractor(s) to
deliver energy efficiency and associated works to Council housing from 2022
-2024, with an option to extend for one or more periods up to a maximum of two
years. 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 Corporate Energy Manager. The Corporate Energy Manager said the following in response to Members’
questions: i.
External
wall insulation had been installed on 150 properties in 2020/21 and it was
hoped that it would be installed in 80-90 properties this year. ii.
The
contract would be awarded following a formal procurement process and bidders
would be assessed against certain criteria including value for money. There was
an option included in the recommendation for the contract to be extended for up
to 2 years subject to satisfactory performance by the contractor. iii.
Noted
that some of the council housing stock did have ‘E’ energy ratings but these
were being reviewed and prioritised for retrofit works where possible. iv.
Noted
that retrofit improvements to properties could include solar panels, new
windows / doors and insulation. v.
New
energy efficient improvements would be considered for example underfloor
insulation and air source heat pumps had been installed in a couple of council
owned properties. vi.
Noted
that delays in the implementation of the MRI Asset Management ICT system was
due to a national issue. vii.
Council
Tenants could contact the Council to check if their property had loft
insulation. Whether a property had loft insulation would be checked when the
housing stock condition survey was carried out. viii.
The
Council is planning to submit a bid to the ‘Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund
wave 2’ later this year which if successful would be used to undertake
additional improvements in terms of energy efficiency of council homes. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation. The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendation. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|||||||||||||
HRA Outturn Report 2021/22 PDF 460 KB Minutes: Recommendation i was chaired by Diana Minns (Vice Chair)
and recommendation ii was chaired by Councillor Thittala Varkey. Matter for Decision The report presented
for the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) - A summary of actual income and expenditure compared to the final budget
for 2021/22 (outturn position). - Revenue and capital budget variances with explanations - Specific requests to carry forward funding available from both revenue
and capital budget underspends into 2022/23 - A summary of housing debt which was written off during 2021/22. Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing i.
Approved carry forward requests totalling
£12,561,760 in revenue funding from 2021/22 into 2022/23 as detailed in
appendix C of the officer’s report. ii.
Recommends to Council to approve carry
forward requests of £22,055,000 in HRA and General Fund Housing capital budgets
and associated resources from 2021/22 into 2022/23 and beyond to fund re-phased
net capital spending, as detailed in appendix D of the officer’s report and the
associated notes to the appendix. 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 Assistant Head
of finance and Business Manager. The Assistant Head of Finance and
Business Manager and Head of Maintenance and Assets said the following in
response to Members’ questions: i.
Carry forward requests detailed in appendix C
of the officer report, had been submitted to ensure there was financial
resource to enable required cyclical maintenance works to be carried out. ii.
Officers were exploring a number of different
ways to improve access to council properties so that essential maintenance
works and checks could be carried out. This included offering later appointment
times. Also confirmed that the Responsive Repair Team would always make
appointments with tenants and confirm an appointment by letter; officers would
not attend a property without prior notice / appointment. Tenants would be
contacted three times before the property would be classified as a ‘no access’.
Also noted (as per agenda item 22/27/HSC) that officers were exploring aligning
gas / electrical safety checks to try and ensure all necessary safety checks
could be done in one visit. iii.
Noted that tenants were within their rights
to refuse to have works done to their property provided that there was no
detriment to the property or health and safety risk. iv.
Contractors were also being asked to explain
whether a ‘no access’ was due to a tenant refusing works or if it was due to no
response from the tenant. v.
Noted comments about better and realistic
communication with tenants if there were delays in carrying out maintenance
works. Would speak with Tenant Representatives outside of the meeting about
their ideas for better communication what more could be done. vi.
Confirmed that the profiling of spend would
be revisited as part of the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) in September,
so the position would be reviewed at that point to see what progress had been
made and if there was any residual impact of the challenges over the last two
years that needed to be adjusted for. vii.
Confirmed that the average time period to
turn over a void property was 6 weeks. Noted that there were a significant
number of void properties which were being returned back to the Council in poor
condition which increased the period of time it took to bring them back into
use. There were a variety of reasons why a property was being returned in a
poor condition this included long standing tenants who had declined planned
maintenance works and also a few tenants who had caused damage to properties.
Different teams within the Housing Department were working together to share
information on property condition when visits were made to properties. viii.
Confirmed that the fire door contract was
terminated due to poor performance by the contractor. The Council had since
reprocured the contact and a new contractor was now in place. ix.
The term ‘debt reinstated’ meant that a debt
which had previously been written off could be reinstated if a person
re-presented themselves to the city council for housing. Some debts were
‘statute barred’, which meant the council were unable to pursue the debt after
a 6 year period with no interaction had passed.
Some debts were written off due to ‘special circumstances’ this could
include mental health concerns or if someone had been subject to domestic
violence. x.
Noted that the Decent Homes Budget was being
carried into 2023/24 but would still be subject to labour and materials
availability. The Committee resolved by 12 votes to 0
to endorse the recommendation i. The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0
to endorse the recommendation ii. The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations i and ii. |
|||||||||||||
Housing First Interim Review PDF 374 KB Additional documents: Minutes: This item was
chaired by Councillor Thittala Varkey (Chair) Matter for
Decision Housing First is an
approach to helping rough sleepers to leave the streets which differs from
other, longer-established approaches in a number of respects. Cambridge City Council, in
partnership with the County Council, agreed to set up and jointly fund a
Housing First pilot in the city. The pilot would be assessed in two stages: an
interim report carried out at a mid-point in the scheme and a later independent
report once the scheme had been running for a sufficient length of time to
allow a full appraisal. This is the mid-point report. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing i.
Noted the report and the interim findings and noted the
recommendations for further examination, the most important of which were set
out paragraph 3.4 of the officer 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 Housing Services Manager (Housing Advice). The Housing Services Manager (Housing Advice) said the following in
response to Members’ questions: i.
Any
decision to bring the Housing First Service in-house would need to consider
several variables including consultation with the County Council (as a partner
in the project with the City Council) and Housing First employees. Commented
that if the service was brought in house this could facilitate better
integration with other services for rough sleepers. ii.
The
comments made by support workers within the report would be a consideration in
the future review of the service. Noted that there needed to be better
integration of the Housing First service within the broad spectrum of housing
services for rough sleepers. There needed to be a balance between the needs of
individuals and other people who may be vulnerable (neighbours / tenants etc). iii.
Stated
that the County Council would always be involved as a partner with the Housing
First project, the question which was raised in the report was whether Housing
First would sit better within the City Council in terms of this being the best
fit for Cambridge. iv.
Noted
concerns raised about Housing First 2 and the good neighbour role but felt
there was still not enough information about this at the moment to draw
conclusions as there were currently only two. v.
Confirmed
that there would be a review of the modular homes project but there was
insufficient information at the moment to do a like for like comparison to
Housing First. vi.
Six
modular home units at Newmarket Road were funded completely independently of
the council. Officers were currently in
discussions about funding for further units. Housing First was a good fit for
some people but was not appropriate for everyone. Needed to get more Housing
Association involvement in the project. vii.
There
were a number of considerations / eligibility criteria taken into account as to
whether Housing First was appropriate for a particular individual. Housing
First may be appropriate where other housing options had failed. viii.
Acknowledged
that the case studies in the report were from males but female clients did not
come forward to take part. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations. The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest were
declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|||||||||||||
Report on proposed development Scheme at Fanshawe Road PDF 702 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: This item was
chaired by Councillor Thittala Varkey (Chair) Matter for
Decision The report sought budget
and approval to proceed with the redevelopment of Fanshawe Road flats, adjacent
houses, and garages to provide 93 new highly sustainable, affordable homes on
the site, with enhanced open space, as well as improvements to the community
pavilion on neighbouring Coleridge recreation ground. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing i.
Approved that the scheme be brought forward and included in
the Housing Capital Programme, with an indicative capital budget of
£27,937,291.53 to cover all site assembly, construction costs, professional
fees and further associated fees, to deliver a 100% affordable housing scheme
which meets the identified need in Cambridge City. Budget would be drawn down
from the sum already ear-marked and approved for investment in new homes. ii.
Authorised the Strategic Director in consultation with the
Executive Councillor for Housing to approve variations to the scheme including
the number of units and mix of property types, sizes and tenure as outlined in
the officer’s report. iii.
Authorised the Strategic Director in consultation with the
Executive Councillor for Housing to adopt option b; to deliver a minimum of 44
(approx. 47%) affordable homes for Council rent and the balance as market homes
for private sale, should grant not be available once the scheme is at a
deliverable point, subject to continued financial viability. iv.
Approved that delegated authority be given to the Executive
Councillor for Housing in conjunction with the Strategic Director to enable the
site to be developed through Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) subject to
a value for money assessment to be carried out on behalf of the Council. v.
Delegated authority to the Strategic Director to commence
Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) proceedings on leasehold properties to be
demolished to enable the development, should these be required. vi.
Delegated authority to the Strategic Director to serve
initial Demolition Notices under the Housing Act 1985. vii.
Delegated Authority to the Head of Housing to amend the local
lettings plan for Cromwell Road to allow for the proposed decant from Fanshawe
Road to be accommodated. 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 Senior Development Manager. The Senior Development Manager, Director of Enterprise and Sustainable
Development and Head of the Housing Development Agency said the following in
response to Members’ questions: i.
If
the redevelopment went ahead residents would be offered alternative housing at
the Cromwell Road development but acknowledged that this may not be appropriate
for everyone and that there was also alternative housing stock elsewhere in the
ward which could be explored. Pre-application advice had been sought from the
Planning Department some homes would be 2 storeys others estimate 3-4 storeys
in the middle of the development. ii.
All
properties would need to be compliant with M42 standards and 5% of the
properties (approximately 4-5 properties) would need to be fully adapted for
wheelchair users. The ability to deliver passivhaus
properties had been explored however the orientation of properties was crucial
as they would need to be south facing and the early indication of the
development layout was that the properties would be east/west facing. The
scheme would include Passivhaus principles. Acknowledged
that there would be a trade-off between competing interests. The important
factor is the output achieved in terms of carbon emissions, fuel bills for
residents and low maintenance costs and not just the passivhaus
badge. The Council is involved with including passivhaus
pilots with learning to be fed back. iii.
The
amount of bike storage proposed would accommodate the number of
bedrooms/occupants who would be on the site.
iv.
Officers
regularly checked the housing register to see how many people needed a fully
accessible home. v.
Advised
that the council sought to build mixed and balanced communities when sites were
redeveloped. The inclusion of market
homes within a development meant that more affordable housing could be built.
The council had to be careful when selling properties not to act or apply a
policy which was discriminatory. The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations. The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations. |
|||||||||||||
Update on New Build Council Housing Delivery PDF 864 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: This item was
chaired by Councillor Thittala Varkey (Chair) Matter for
Decision The report provided an update on the housing development
programme. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing i.
Noted the continued progress on the
delivery of the approved housing programme. ii.
Noted forthcoming work on
consultation with residents. iii.
Agreed the adoption of a blended
rent policy (to include more social rent but some higher rents at 80% of median
market rents inclusive of Service Charge) across the new 1,000 homes programme,
as required, when delivering homes with grant above the minimum planning
requirement of 40% of units on any site. iv.
Delegated authority to the Strategic
Director to update the HRA Rent Setting Policy in accordance with
recommendation iii above. v.
Approved the start on site of
currently approved schemes that have planning permission at risk in relation to
grant, to mitigate the risk of build cost increase. vi.
Approved the rent level changes to
the specific schemes outlined in this report, including the addition of 45
homes at L2, with 30 homes to be let at Social Rent and 45 homes to be let at
80% of market rent. vii.
Approved a budget of £11,520,000.00
for the purchase as a package deal of the private sale units at L2 Orchard Park
into the Council's HRA stock, to be let at 80% of median market rent. viii.
Approved changes to the Budgets for
Fen Road, Ditton Walk and Borrowdale as outlined in part 8.5.3, with the
revised budgets to be incorporated as part of the HRA MTFS in September 2022. ix.
Authorised the Section 151 Officer
to enter into a Grant Agreement with Homes England for the 21-26 Homes England
Affordable Homes Programme for Continuous Market Engagement. x.
Approved the principle that units to
be let at 80% of market rent be targeted at key workers OR the intermediate
rental market, (ie those who
are assessed as being on incomes sufficient to be able to afford 80% of market
rent), and governed by local lettings plans. xi.
Approved that as part of our Housing
Strategy development work the Head of Housing has delegated authority to agree
(subject to consultation with the Executive Councillor) a definition of key
worker. xii.
Agreed that the Council works with
South Cambridgeshire DC to try and jointly agree the definition of key worker. 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 the Housing Development
Agency. An updated table to that detailed in paragraph 8.2.4 of the report had
been circulated to members at the meeting, a copy was also published on the
meeting webpage after the meeting. The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Welcomed a ‘key worker’ definition in relation to
housing policies.
ii.
Expressed disappointment with a loose commitment
regarding passivhaus development. The Executive Councillor welcomed homes for key workers. The Head of Housing said that City Council Officers would work with
colleagues from South Cambridgeshire District Council to try and agree a
definition of ‘key worker’. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations. The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|||||||||||||
Community Alarms Service Review PDF 311 KB The Appendices B1 and B2 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 1, 2 and 3 of Part 1
of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972. Additional documents:
Minutes: This item was
chaired by Councillor Thittala Varkey (Chair) Matter for
Decision Cambridge City
Council’s Community Alarms service has been in operation in the City for over
20 years and currently serves around 440 customers. It has built a solid
reputation and provided a valuable service over this time. However, for the
last 5 years the service has been experiencing a decline in customer numbers
and has, therefore, not achieved its income targets, resulting in the service
no longer recovering its full cost inclusive of all overheads. A review of the
options for the service has been conducted and the report recommends the
termination of the service by the City Council and the transfer of customers to
the equivalent service by Cambridgeshire County Council. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing i.
Agreed the termination of the Community Alarm 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 Housing Service Manager
(Supported Housing). The Housing Services Manager (Supported Housing) said the following in
response to Members’ questions: i.
Advised
that the officer whose job was affected by the proposals had been involved with
the drafting of the report and developing the recommendation. ii.
Noted
in relation to concerns expressed regarding paragraph 1.3 of the officer’s
report that discussions which had taken place with the County Council in 2019
were before the County Council had set up their own independent service. iii.
Agreed
to share information regarding pricing with members and would report back on
discussions with the County Council. The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation. The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendation. Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted) No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor. |
|||||||||||||
To Note Decision Taken by the Executive Councillor for Housing |
|||||||||||||
Funding for the Demolition of East Road Garages PDF 101 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The decision was noted. |