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: No apologies were received. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 12 March 2024 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Co-option and introduction of Tenant and Leaseholder Representatives and appointment of Vice-Chair (Tenant/Leaseholder Rep) for 2024/25 Minutes: The Chair welcomed new and returning Tenant and Leaseholder Representatives following the recent election process and the Committee noted their co-option onto Housing Scrutiny Committee Diana Minns was appointed Vice-Chair Tenant Representative for Municipal Year 2024/25. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Public Questions Minutes: Question 1 – Agenda item 8 · How much
of this work is currently carried out by in-house staff? if so what work is
this? · What is
meant by it is almost certain that there could be TUPE implications for the
council in respect of staff and contractors currently working for Fosters
Property Maintenance limited but is unlikely that former LGPS staff pensions
will transferred to the new providers Why? · Has an
options appraisal exercise been done? Including consideration for an in-house
bid for any of the work? · Has an
inhouse bid been considered? If we make an in-house bid we can develop the
skills to maintain the new builds,
securing future in-house jobs for a directly employed workforce. · If not
why? · Has there
been an outline business case carried out? · Could you
explain why there is a 11% variation on the estimated value of the contract £6m
to £7m? · What are
the measures for ‘social value will be in the contract? that past outsourced contracts have led to
wages stagnating, lack of the Real Living Wage, poor health, and safety. The Executive Councillor for Housing responded: i.
None of this work was currently carried out by
in-house staff. Contract management together with property surveys for some
work streams were carried out by the Asset Management team in City Services.
Actual delivery of the work was carried out by appointed contractors. ii.
There were no staff who used to work for Cambridge
City Council who now worked for Foster Property Maintenance, so there would be
no TUPE involving the Council and the Local Government Pension Scheme. There could be staff employed by Foster
Property Maintenance and their supply chain who had protection under the TUPE
regulations. iii.
The Estate and Facilities team developed a new
Procurement Strategy in 2022 and this was used to develop the proposals in the
report. This considered the size and scope of the proposed contract, contract
term, procurement method and criteria. There was no current proposal for an
‘in-house bid’ for this work. iv.
If a decision was taken to bring the work ‘in
house’ this would be after a full business case demonstrated that this was the
best solution and would offer value for money. v.
The Council was currently undergoing a corporate
transformation process. There were no current internal resources available to
deliver this work. A lot of the work being tendered was specialist in nature
and there was not always sufficient guaranteed volume to sustain an in-house
delivery team. vi.
There had not been a business case completed for
creating an in-house team to deliver the work. The following responses to questions were provided outside the meeting: vii.
This was a programme of work that would take place
in the future, so could only provide estimated annual contract values within a
range. This should be enough to provide
bidders with information to help them to decide whether to bid, and it also
provided the Council with flexibility when planning annual programmes of
work. viii.
The details of the Social Value requirements would
be set out in the specifications for the contract. This was being finalised. Social Value would be part of the tender
evaluation criteria and bidders were expected to make clear proposals
regarding: • apprenticeships and work placements; • reduction of waste and pollution; • creation of a thriving local economy; • reduction of energy, carbon emissions and
water use; • increase of biodiversity. Question 2 – Agenda item 6 The residents have lived in Ekin road for a number of years ranging from
a few years to 40 + years as these buildings were built in the fifties and now
it’s 2024 the buildings are subsiding ,walls with no insulation, mould on the
walls in all the rooms and windows, leaks in the pipes ,no lifts in the flats
,roads unsafe ,and people have lived in these conditions for years why has it
taken this long to decide whether or not to pull it down this should have been
done years ago . All the house’s and all the flats are in serious trouble EVERY SINGLE
PROPERTY should be demolished let Ekin Road have a new lease of life it’s time
this is 2024 .Cambridge is in need of more affordable homes so think about what
is going on around us there are more and more homeless families plus with the
Barnwell road development this would
generate more homes more jobs and people be more happier living in a area knowing it’s safer for there
families places for children to play it doesn’t matter if you live in the north
south east or west of Ekin road the buildings need to come down I know the
minority want to save their house’s but think about the majority of the
residents who live in Ekin road who want out. They don’t want there child to be the next
casualty to be taken into hospital with pneumonia after in haling
the spores from black mould this should not be happening are you going to risk
the life’s of many to suit 14 homes out of 122 homes do they not realise that
they are causing suffering to the residents some have new born babies the
mental health is now at breaking point. So after reading this my question is. Why are the council not listening to the council residents and some home owners of Ekin road myself and
my partner have been speaking to the residents and I am now speaking on there behalf you say you have spoken to us .but have you
listened to the residents we have been telling you that it needs to be
demolished and all we hear is yes we know
but until you have lived in one of the flats or houses that are in
desperate need of repair you won’t know what it’s like to live in these
conditions. The Executive Councillor for Housing responded: i.
The estate had undergone a thorough options
appraisal process to review the opportunities for the future of the estate. It
was important that this work was done carefully and thoroughly, as it impacted
many homes. ii.
Everything had been carefully considered, including
the current condition of the estate, planning policy, financial viability and
importantly feedback from the community. iii.
There had been ongoing resident engagement since
September 2021. The council had held events, conducted 3 x surveys,
continuously offered confidential appointments, regularly held liaison group
meetings, and knocked on all the doors on the estate to understand resident’s
needs. iv.
There was a mixture of views on the estate and the
council had listened and responded accordingly. v.
Was aware of the conditions that many residents
were living in, particularly in the flats and agreed it was important for a
decision to be made. Wanted to thank all residents for being patient during
this process and would continue to provide close support to everyone impacted
by the proposals. Supplementary Public Question: i.
Questioned the ability of a councillor sitting on
Housing Scrutiny Committee to support a particular viewpoint / group regarding
a redevelopment proposal. Post meeting note:
i.
At Housing Scrutiny Committee, it is the Executive
Councillor (for this issue, Councillor Bird) who is the decision maker for the
redevelopment report. ii.
Members of the Housing Scrutiny Committee can
discuss reports at the Scrutiny Committee and vote on a recommendation to the
Executive Councillor, but the Scrutiny Committee members are not the decision
makers. Question 3 – Agenda item 6 As a freeholder in Ekin Road, I wholeheartedly approve the Councils
plans to redevelop Ekin Road, and keep the 14 houses on the South side, even
though this means my house will be demolished. I think this plan is a good
compromise, balancing the need for redevelopment with the residents opinions. The flats, and many of the houses on Ekin road, are of poor quality and
in urgent need of upgrading. They are quite simply not safe to live in. The proposed designs create the much needed new family homes, increase
parking, and make use of a lot of the wasted green space currently found to the
east and west of the estate. I believe the Committee should vote to approve the plans, anymore delay
is an insult to the residents that have been in limbo for 3 years. The Executive Councillor for Housing responded: i.
Thanked the residents living in the houses and the
flats on the Ekin Road estate, including council tenants and homeowners for
being patient during this process. It was useful to hear from everyone
throughout this process and hoped that a decision would mean that residents
could plan for the future. Question 4 – Agenda item 6 We are the Save Ekin Road community group, and we are writing to you
regarding Cambridge City Council's proposals for Ekin Road. We are a group of
60 council tenants, leasehold and freehold residents. As done in the past, we
wish to express our concerns regarding the investigation work and potential
development of our estate. We note Agenda Item 6 of this meeting, where the Council is now putting
forward a proposal to redevelop a majority of the Ekin Road estate. We welcome
a houses-led development of Ekin Road. We welcome the redevelopment of the
flats and emergency Home-Link banding for those council tenants. We welcome the
rehousing prioritisation of tenants whose living conditions are the worst on
the estate. However, although we welcome the retention of the 14 houses on the
southern edge of the estate, we believe that this does not go far enough. We
have repeatedly asked the Council to preserve all 32 semi-detached houses on
the estate; this proposal only preserves 14, which is less than half. We cannot
accept this. Having reviewed the proposal for the estate, and having consulted our
members, we now wish to make the following three requests to the Council, which
we believe are reasonable and justified, with reasons to follow below: Request 1: We request that the 6 semi-detached houses in the north-east corner of
the estate (odd numbers 13-23 inclusive) be retained in the redevelopment of
Ekin Road, in addition to those 14 houses on the southern edge of the estate
(odd numbers 33-59). Request 2: We request that the Council prioritise rehousing all those council
tenants from houses that are to be demolished into the retained Council-owned
houses, making use of those which currently house temporary residents or are
void. Request 3: We request that any refurbishment work done on any Council-owned
retained houses on the estate is only to be carried out after a full and
thorough consultation with the affected residents, to understand their concerns
and the impact on them. And we request that any decision to proceed with such
works is first brought back to this Housing Scrutiny Committee for approval. · Our
reasons for request 1 are as follows: The majority of the residents in those
houses have expressed a strong desire to keep their homes, and some have been
in theirs for over 40 years. These are well-loved family homes, and there are
no intrinsic reasons to take them down. · Several of
the residents in those houses have physical, or mental, health issues, for
which their house is their lifeline. To forcibly remove them from their home
will substantially reduce their quality of life, in ways that, for many, will
be irreversible. We will not articulate their (very personal) circumstances
here; the Council has already been made aware directly from them. · There is a
strong sense of community even within those 6 houses. Many residents are very
close, and have been family friends for decades. There is also a community
connection to the remainder of the estate, with some of those residents having
relatives who live in the retained 14 houses on the southern edge of the
estate. · As per
page 6 of the BPTW document, full redevelopment of the north-east corner would
only lead to a net gain of 3 houses compared with retaining those 6 existing
houses and “building around them”. Thus, it is extremely wasteful and
unnecessary to carry out so much demolition. · The
remainder of the design plans for the estate are undisturbed if those 6 houses
in the north-east are retained. Again, as per page 6 of the BPTW document, all
that would change is the layout of that north-east area, and nothing else. · We are
aware of various protected species which live in the gardens of the houses in
the north-east corner, whose habitats would be destroyed if those houses are
demolished. Our reasons for request 2 are as follows: · There is
absolutely nothing wrong with the houses in the centre block and northern edge
(numbering 12 in total). They are merely “inconveniently placed” for the
redevelopment that the Council is proposing. As such, those residents are
paying a significant personal price for the redevelopment that the Council
wishes to carry out, and so should be assisted to the fullest possible extent. · Several of
those living in these houses as council tenants have been in them for decades,
with the longest-standing council-resident having been in theirs for over 50
years. That's half a century where this person has made that their home, has
diligently paid rent, and has cared for their home and raised their family in
it. If these residents are to be forcibly moved from their longstanding homes,
then the harm to them should be minimised by offering them a near-identical
house on the same street, given that such housing is indeed available. · Residents
in those houses have strong ties to the area, and to the local community,
including to those living in the 6 houses in the north-east of the estate, and
the 14 houses on the southern edge. It adds insult to injury to not only take
these people’s homes, but also take them out of the community they have known
and adored for most of their lives. Our reasons for request 3 are as follows: · A
refurbishment of any retained houses might be a significant undertaking,
potentially leading to substantial changes to people’s family homes, as well as
to a possible resident decant for a prolonged period. · Such
impact needs to be properly understood before any decision is made on whether,
and how, to carry out such a refurbishment. · It would
be totally counterproductive for the Council to “save” several council houses
on the southern edge (and in the north-east corner), for those residents to be
then evicted from their homes anyway, potentially permanently. · The severe
impact this might have on residents therefore warrants further consideration by
this committee before a final decision is made on any such refurbishment. We hope the Council can see that our requests above are a significant
concession from our group, as we are no longer calling for the retention of all
32 semi-detached houses on the estate, but rather for this reduced set of 20
houses. Having looked at the plans for the estate we believe that, with the
changes outlined in Request 1 and the harm-minimisation actions outlined in
Requests 2 and 3, this might become a proposal that our group can openly
support. Unfortunately, as things currently stand, it is not. We believe that our requests here are reasonable, and moreover
implementable, without causing disruption to the overall plans for our estate.
We simply want to be able to preserve our community and way of life, and these
minor changes to the proposal would make that possible. Kind regards, Save Ekin Road The Executive Councillor for Housing responded: i.
The need to keep the four groups of houses on the
Ekin Road estate within the redevelopment had been carefully considered. ii.
At this stage, a planning application had not been
submitted and further work with the planning officers through pre-app meetings
was still required. iii.
The team were working to address the key issues,
including the provision of enough open space across the new estate and the
level of affordable housing that could be provided. iv.
While the team worked to resolve these issues there
would be further engagement with residents and the need to redevelop the whole
of the area within the new red line would be kept under review. The current
assessment included the six houses to the east of Ekin Road. Supplementary public question: i.
There were many aspects of the proposals which they
liked, and they would have liked to have shown support for the proposal.
However, they could not because of the proposed removal of the six houses in
the northeast corner. Many of the residents who lived in that corner were
distraught at the prospect of losing their homes and were some of the most
fragile and vulnerable members of the community. To remove them from their
homes would be devastating for them. Officers were being made aware of their
personal circumstances. ii.
The proposals were to demolish these six houses and
replace them with nine houses. Of the nine replacement houses, 56% would be
sold off (i.e. five houses to pay for the remaining four houses and three of
the four houses would be social rent). Asked the council to reconsider the
proposals as part of the design process and to leave these houses. Remained in
opposition to the proposals to protect the residents living in the northeast
corner. The Executive Councillor for Housing responded: i.
With reference to the six properties in the
northeast corner. There were three freeholders who were willing to sell their
properties. A meeting had taken place the night before the Scrutiny Committee
meeting with the tenants, public speaker, officers, and Executive Councillor. ii.
Understood that officers had advised that they
would look to relocate the three tenants together so that they could still live
as neighbours together. iii.
The fourteen houses to the south were no longer
being redeveloped. iv.
The redevelopment proposals needed to include the
six houses in the northeast corner. The
decanting process awarded all affected council tenants with the highest
priority on the housing register and one-to-one support throughout the process. v.
Priority for shortlisting of council properties
would be allocated based on severity of the damp, mould or condensation as well
as the age and vulnerability of household members. vi.
The regeneration team were committed to working
with each household on a case-by-case basis and were happy to review moving
options within or close by to Ekin Road, depending on availability and personal
circumstances. vii.
The council had a good track record of relocating
neighbours together and appreciated the established communities within the
estate. viii.
The assumption within the JLL report was that the
seven Council owned homes would be refurbished. ix.
At some point the council would need to consider
refurbishing the seven council homes to the south but there were no firm plans
or a programme. Tenants would be consulted if refurbishment plans were
considered. Question 5 – Agenda item 6 Dear Councillors, I live with my family in a house in the north-east corner of Ekin Road.
I'm devastated that these plans will take away my family home and my safe
space. Why are you taking away my home, and my local support network, where
there is no need for it. Our homes are fine, but you want to take them anyway.
Our little support network in that corner of the estate will be broken apart
beyond repair. We rely on each other for so many aspects of our day to day
lives, and that is all going to be taken away from. Please leave our homes alone. We don't care what else you do on the
estate. We just want to be left in peace, and the thought of losing what we
have is unbearable. The Executive Councillor for Housing responded: i.
Officers considered so many factors in this process
and appreciated the impact this would have to many households within the
estate. The inclusion of the six houses to the northeast in the current plans
were carefully considered, this had not been a simple task. ii.
Understood that anyone facing redevelopment would
have lots of questions and would continue to be available to discuss any
concerns residents had and to support them throughout the process. iii.
The Regeneration Team would be contacting effected
households and were keen to provide support to all households. Question 6 – agenda item 6 1.
On the 23rd January and subsequently on the 12th of
March, the Executive Councillor reported that of the 72 flats damp and mouldy
on Ekin Road, 5 were vacant (void works) and 67 were occupied, could she please
update the meeting on how many are currently vacant and occupied. 2.
Does the city council agree that making the
decision on the redevelopment of Ekin Road at this meeting during a general
election campaign is irregular and implies that the incoming labour government
will have the same housing policy as the conservative one? 3.
Does the city council agree that the issue of
moving residents out of damp and mouldy flats should not be linked to the
development of the estate and that irrespective of the development decision all
flat residents should be rebanded to the highest
priority on homelink immediately. The Executive
Councillor for Housing responded: i.
Records showed that, out of the 72 flats, one was
currently void. ii.
The timeline for the project was published in
October 2023, this project was considered business as usual. iii.
It was proposed to award all impacted residents with
emergency banding now irrespective of a phasing plan, so that they could move
into a suitable property straight away, instead of waiting longer. Supplementary public question: i.
Did not feel it was appropriate for the city
council to make a decision on this issue during the pre-election period. ii.
In January and March 2024, it was reported that
there were five vacant properties at Ekin Road and now it had been advised that
there was only one. Asked whether residents had been moved back into four of
the five vacant properties referred to. iii.
When asked in January if you agreed with the Royal
College of Practitioners report that damp and mouldy flats were dangerous for
people’s health and that people should not be living in these conditions,
questioned why it had taken six months to put these residents at the top of
home link banding. The Executive Councillor for Housing responded: i.
Homelink operated
based on people’s needs. The redevelopment proposals, if approved, would move
residents up to urgent. The Assistant Director (Development)
responded: ii.
The number of vacant properties referred to may
change because of the use of these properties as temporary accommodation.
Residents would not be moved into properties which were in a damp and mouldy
condition. Post meeting note: Whilst an area is being considered for re-development
but a decision has not been made, our normal voids procedure will be followed
and properties will be re-let that can be brought up to our voids standard.
This explains the difference in the number of voids at Ekin Road between
committee meetings. Now a decision has been made to decant and demolish the homes at Ekin
Road no further lets will be made through Homelink as
general needs homes but where vacant properties can be made lettable without large
financial outlay they will be utilised as temporary accommodation. This will
assist with the Council’s responsibilities around Homelessness and reducing the
need for bed and breakfast accommodation as well as still receiving an income
into the HRA on properties scheduled for demolition. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Report on Ekin Road Stage 2 Options Appraisal PDF 931 KB Appendix 4 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. Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision Report on the redevelopment scheme at Ekin Road. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing i.
Noted the completion of JLL Final Report (Stages 2 and 2b) of
the options appraisal for Ekin Road. ii.
Approved that a mixed tenure scheme be brought forward, and a
planning application submitted in line with the emerging design proposals set
out in the officer report for the redevelopment of the Ekin Road estate
excluding the 14 houses to the south of the estate. The development of the
proposals to include further engagement with residents of the estate. iii.
Authorised the Chief Operating Officer (COO) in consultation
with the Executive Councillor for Housing to approve variations to the scheme
including the number of units, tenure, mix of property types and sizes outlined
in the officer’s report. iv.
Authorised the Chief Operating Officer in consultation with
the Executive Councillor to approve the transfer of the land known as Ekin Road
and Ekin Walk (excluding nos. 33-59 odd Ekin Road and 1 – 6 Ekin Close) and
shown edged red on the attached plan in Appendix 1, to Cambridge Investment
Partnership (CIP) for redevelopment. The transfer would be at a value provided
by a further independent valuation. v.
Authorised the Chief Operating Officer in consultation with
the Executive Councillor to approve an Affordable Housing Agreement with CIP
for the purchase of 64 affordable homes. This agreement would be at a value
provided by an independent valuer. vi.
Approved draw down of a budget of £19,859,734 from the budget
approved for the delivery of new homes, to fund the purchase of the affordable
homes and associated development costs including on costs, the purchase of
freehold and leasehold properties and the costs of decant for residents of the
estates. vii.
Approved giving 82 affected council tenants required to
decant the highest priority on the Council's choice-based lettings system
(Home-Link). The emergency banding
status would be applied to all existing secure tenant applications from 18 June
2024. viii.
Delegated authority to the Chief Operating Officer to take
steps preparatory to the making of a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) in respect
of any Leasehold and Freehold properties required in order to deliver the
scheme. ix.
Delegated authority to the Chief Operating Officer to make a
CPO in respect of any leasehold or freehold interests that cannot be acquired
by private treaty within a reasonable timescale and at a reasonable cost
subject to the Chief Operating Officer being satisfied that there is a
compelling case in the public interest for the use of compulsory purchase
powers, and that all legal and policy requirements for the making and
confirmation of a CPO have been met; x.
Delegated authority to the Chief Operating Officer to serve
initial Demolition Notices under the Housing Act 1985. xi.
Delegated authority to the Chief Operating Officer to
investigate and approve a scheme of works to improve the seven Council owned
properties that would be retained. 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 Director (Development). The Assistant Director (Development) and Assistant Director for Housing
and Homelessness said the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
The Council would continue to apply for grant
funding from Homes England. The success of the 500 homes programme was based on
less stringent grant arrangements compared to grant arrangements which were in
place now. Detail was included within the officer report around what it was
believed the rent levels would be. There was a chance to try and increase the
number of affordable homes on the development. Further work was required with
the Planning Department.
ii.
The fourteen homes along the south were the more
straight forward to remove from the application site. Within the middle of the
officer report and as part of the appendix to the JLL report there was a
separate summary by the architect which looked at the four clusters of housing
and their constraints. The scheme needed to balance the right mix of homes,
open space, and other associated planning considerations.
iii.
The council learned things from every redevelopment
scheme. For this scheme it was important to consider the impact of the
redevelopment proposals on the community as a whole and not just the residents
included within the ‘red line’ development site. ‘Place based’ communication
was key as well as genuine and meaningful engagement and consultation.
Difficult choices had to be made when considering redevelopment of the
council’s housing stock. iv.
Consultants were employed to provide independent
and specialist advice.
v.
Tenants had a statutory legal right to return to
the estate following any redevelopment. In previous experience it was found
that most tenants didn’t return as moving twice in a short period of time was a
lot. vi.
If redevelopment was approved, then construction
traffic would be controlled via the planning system. vii.
Where major refurbishment works were required to
council properties and it was not possible for residents to remain in the
property whilst works were undertaken, tenants could be decanted temporarily
into alternative accommodation. There was financial assistance available in
these circumstances to help with the temporary move, but this was different to
the statutory home loss payment, which would not apply. viii.
Officers had met with three council tenants the
previous evening and would work with them to keep them together should
redevelopment be approved. ix.
As far as officers were aware on previous
redevelopments where decanting had taken place, only one council tenant had
advised that they would want to return if redevelopment took place. Cllr Tong proposed the following amendments to recommendations,
deleted text Councillor Martinelli seconded the amendments to enable votes to
be taken on the amendments. Amended recommendations 2.2 Approve that a mixed tenure scheme be brought forward, and a
planning application submitted in line with the emerging design proposals set
out in this report for the redevelopment of the Ekin Road estate excluding the
14 houses to the south of the estate and the 6 houses on the north-east
corner of the estate. The development of the proposals to include further
engagement with residents of the estate. 2.3 Authorise the Chief Operating Officer (COO) in consultation
with the Executive Councillor for housing, Chair and Spokes to approve
variations to the scheme including the number of units, tenure, mix of property
types and sizes outlined in this report. 2.4 Authorise the Chief Operating Officer
in consultation with the Executive Councillor, Chair and Spokes to
approve the transfer of the land known as Ekin Road and Ekin Walk (excluding
nos. 33-59 odd Ekin Road, 13-23 odd Ekin Road, and 1 – 6
Ekin Close) and shown edged red on the attached plan in Appendix 1, to Cambridge
Investment Partnership (CIP) for redevelopment. The transfer will be at a value
provided by a further independent valuation. 2.5 Authorise the Chief Operating Officer
in consultation with the Executive Councillor, Chair and Spokes to
approve an Affordable Housing Agreement with CIP for the purchase of 64
affordable homes. This agreement will be at a value provided by an independent
valuer. 2.8 Delegate authority to the Chief Operating Officer to
take steps preparatory to the making of a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) in
respect of any Leasehold and Freehold properties required in order to deliver
the scheme. 2.10 Delegate authority to the Chief Operating Officer to
serve initial Demolition Notices under the Housing Act 1985.
2.1 The proposed amendments to the recommendations were lost by: 2.2 – 1 vote in favour, 6 against and 2 abstentions 2.3 – 3 votes in favour, 6 against 2.4 – 1 vote in favour, 6 against and 2 abstentions 2.5 – 1 vote in favour, 8 against 2.8 – 1 vote in favour, 8 against 2.10 – 1 vote in favour, 8 against 2.11 – 1 vote in favour, 8 against The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations: i. 2.1, 2.7 and 2.12 unanimously ii. 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11 by 8 votes in favour,
0 against and 1 abstention. 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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Additional documents: Minutes: Matter for
Decision The report provided an update on the compliance
related activities delivered within the City Services Compliance Team, including
a summary on gas, electrical, fire, lifts, legionella
and asbestos. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing i.
Noted the progress of the compliance related work detailed
within 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 Strategic Delivery Manager. The Strategic Delivery Manager and the Assistant Director for Housing
and Homelessness said the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
Noted the concerns raised regarding timescales for
action / responses by the Council included within the Damp Condensation and
Mould (DCM) Policy and advised would look into whether
these were realistic and achievable. Noted concerns which had been raised by a
Tenant Representative that these had not been achieved when a concern had been
raised by them.
ii.
Commented as a social landlord there was a
requirement to promote ways in which tenants could complain if they were not
happy with the way the council delivered services. It was noted that there was
an internal complaints system Compliments,
complaints and suggestions - Cambridge City Council and also
complaints could be made to the Housing Ombudsman Home | Housing
Ombudsman Service (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
iii.
Further data regarding DCM issues had started to be
collated by officers and would be included within future reports. This included
information regarding why DCM had arisen, the seriousness of it and the
effectiveness of measures taken to remove it. iv.
Confirmed that ‘live’ figures for DCM and how the
cases were being dealt with would be included in future reports.
v.
Confirmed that responsive repairs would continue to
be undertaken for any cases of DCM reported for Ekin Road properties. The Executive Councillor for Housing advised
in response to a question about whether the DCM Team was appropriately resourced
that officers had advised that the Team covering this area of work was
appropriately resourced at the current time.
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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Procurement of Planned Maintenance Contractor PDF 210 KB Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Council had
two long-term planned maintenance works contracts in place. One was with Foster
Property Maintenance Limited, and one is with TSG Building Services. The
contract with Foster Property Maintenance Limited was due to expire in
September 2025. It was proposed that the Council carried out a procurement
exercise to award a replacement contract so planned maintenance service
delivery could continue uninterrupted at the end of the current contract. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing i.
Approved the issue of tenders and, following evaluation of
tenders, authorise the Director City Services to award a contract(s) to a
contractor(s) to carry out planned building maintenance works and associated
services to Council housing and other buildings for a period of five years from
September 2025 to September 2030, with an option to extend for one or more
year(s) up to a maximum extension of three 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 Asset Manager. The Asset Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
Any potential bidders for the maintenance contract
would need to set out how they would meet the requirements set out in the
detailed specification document as part of their bid.
ii.
Noted concerns raised by members regarding the
current contract and that issues had arisen with the use of sub-contractors who
may not be aware of the council’s ethos.
iii.
There were monthly meetings held with the current
contractor and there were key performance indicators (KPIs) that their
performance was assessed against. Customer feedback was also collected. iv.
Noted member’s request to be provided with more
information about the key performance indicators. In terms of the flexibility
to undertake repairs, work at the weekend was usually restricted to 8-12 noon
on a Saturday as it could cause disruptions on estates. Urgent work would be
carried out as required.
v.
Took on board the Committee’s concerns regarding
supply chain management and that the council needed to ensure the full supply
chain was engaged. vi.
There were specific rules which governed a
procurement process which must be followed. Existing contractors could not be
excluded from submitting a bid for the new contract. 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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rent Regulation Errors - Update Report PDF 164 KB Minutes: Matter for
Decision The report provided an update on progress in respect
of the project to recalculate and correct rents and refund any overpayment for properties
affected by either of two identified rent regulation errors. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing i.
Noted progress in respect of the correction and
quantification, calculation and repayment of any overpayments resulting from
the two identified rent regulation errors. 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 Finance and Business Manager. The Head of Finance and Business Manager said the following in response
to Members’ questions:
i.
Noted concerns raised about the impact of
repayments to those in receipt of universal credit and that this could affect
their universal credit payment. Each repayment would be calculated on an
individual basis but could be in the region of thousands of pounds for some
tenants.
ii.
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) had
expressed concern about repayment being made back to tenants directly, where
they would be responsible for paying this money back to the DWP as there was no
mechanism for the DWP to recover this money back from the tenant. There was
legislation which allowed the DWP to demand the money back from the Council
directly, even though payment of the rent had been paid by the tenant
themselves.
iii.
Reassured the Committee that housing benefit
refunds could be made directly back to the DWP and acknowledged Tenant
Representative’s concern that some people could struggle to manage their
finances. Further discussion with the DWP was required to explore whether
direct repayments could be made with regards to universal credit as legislation
stated that it was the DWP’s decision which approach was adopted. iv.
Officers were communicating with tenants about the
refund payment and the impact of this on any threshold of income considered for
benefits. Tenants had also been advised that the refund payment could be used
to pay off any other debts that they may have.
v.
In response to a question about the ‘anonymous’
tenants detailed in section 4a of the report. Advised that the Housing
Management Renting System had the GDPR function switched on which meant that
tenant’s information was deleted (in accordance with data protection rules) 6
years after they ceased to be a council tenant and when there was a ‘nil’
balance. This created problems for repayment as the council could calculate how
much a tenant had paid but information about the person who lived in the
property was not held. Former tenants were able to provide information to
support any claim for a refund of overpaid rent. 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 2023/24 PDF 453 KB Minutes: Matter for
Decision The report presented for the Housing Revenue Account: ·
A summary of actual income
and expenditure compared to the final budget for 2023/24 (outturn position) ·
Revenue and capital budget
variances with explanations ·
Specific requests to carry
forward funding available from both revenue (confirmation of in principle
decisions made in March 2024) and capital budget underspends into
2024/25. ·
A summary of housing debt
which was written off during 2023/24. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing i.
Approved carry forward requests totalling £562,600 in revenue
funding from 2023/24 into 2024/25, as detailed in Appendix C of the officer’s
report. ii.
To recommend to council to approve carry forward requests of
£12,507,000 in HRA and General Fund Housing capital budgets and associated
resources from 2023/24 into 2024/25 and beyond to fund re-phased net capital
spending, as detailed in Appendix D and the associated notes to the appendix in
the officer’s report. iii.
To recommend to council to approve a revised capital
financing structure for 2023/24, utilising £8 million of capital reserves
set-aside for either debt redemption or re-investment, in place of borrowing
and direct revenue financing of capital. This recognises the current high
interest rates for borrowing and the need to maintain a prudent level of
revenue reserves following the requirement to allow for payment of rent refunds arising
from the rent regulation error. 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 Finance and Business Manager. The Head of Finance and Business Manager said the following in response
to Members’ questions:
i.
Would feedback to officers the concerns raised
about the underspend on smoke detectors; officers would need to consider how to
resolve access issues into properties which prevented the smoke detector work
being undertaken.
ii.
Some of the rephased funding for the capital
programme would be rephased into future years as it was recognised that
continuing to rephase funding into the following year, could create
difficulties for contactors if they did not have sufficient capacity to deliver
potentially 2 years’ worth of work in 1 year.
iii.
The 30-year investment programme would be revisited
as part of the medium-term financial strategy which would be considered by the
Committee in November. iv.
Confirmed that future gross and income charts would
include the total expenditure and income within them.
v.
The public loan rate was 5.5% but assumptions within
the budget were made at approximately 4% so the loan rates were higher than had
been planned for. vi.
Noted concerns raised about the underspend on
disabled facilities grants (DFGs) and commented that this service was
‘demand-led’ and therefore dependent on people applying for the grant. Also
noted comments about sign-posting people to appropriate resources. Processes
were in place to sign-post / assist applicants and officers were currently
making sure that Policies were published on the Council’s website. vii.
Noted that DFGs were for people who did not live in
council accommodation. Adaptations for council tenants had a separate process. Post meeting note: In response to a question raised at the meeting about
how long people stayed in temporary accommodation before they were able to move
into permanent accommodation. The average stay in temporary accommodation was
currently around 206 days. The number of households who were in temporary
accommodation on the date of the committee meeting was 169 households. The Committee resolved to endorse the recommendations: - i - by 10 votes to 0 against with 4 abstentions. - ii and iii by 6 votes in favour 0 against and 3 abstentions 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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2024-2029 PDF 410 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision The report sought approval of a revised Housing
Strategy for Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils for 2024
to 2029, to replace the existing Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2019-2023. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing i. Approved the
overarching vision for the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2024-2029
(attached as Appendix A to the officer’s report): “Affordable, Healthy, Safe
and Sustainable: Homes and Communities for All”. ii. Approved the
objectives laid out in the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2024-2029
(attached as Appendix A to the officer’s report): a.
Building the right homes in the right places that
people need and can afford to live in. b.
High quality, low carbon, energy and water
efficient homes. c.
Settled lives. d.
Building strong partnerships. iii.
Approved the priorities laid out in the
Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2024-2029 (attached as Appendix A to the
officer’s report): a.
Increasing the supply of new homes,
including affordable housing, contributing to healthy and sustainable
communities. b.
Enabling the housing market to meet a
wide range of local housing needs and to support sustainable growth. c.
Mitigating and adapting to climate
change through good design and quality of new homes. d.
Improving housing conditions,
management, safety and environmental sustainability of homes, and making best
use of existing homes. e.
Promoting health and wellbeing,
tackling poverty, and promoting equality and social inclusion. f.
Preventing homelessness. g.
Working with partners to innovate and
maximise resources. iv.
Approved the updated Greater Cambridge
Housing Strategy 2024-2029 document itself (attached as Appendix A to the
officer’s report) v.
Approved the new and updated policy
annexes to the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2024-2029 (attached within
Appendix B to the officer’s report): a.
Annex 1: Housing for specific groups. b.
Annex 2: Affordable Housing
Requirements. c.
Annex 3: Clustering and distribution of
affordable housing. d.
Annex 4: Affordable Rents policy. e.
Annex 5: Build to Rent Policy. vi.
Noted the content of the non-policy
related annexes to the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2024-2029 (attached
within Appendix B to this report): a.
Annex 6: Summary of Evidence. b.
Annex 7: Glossary. c.
Annex 8: Key Achievements 2019-2023. vii.
Approved the Year 1 action plan
attached as Appendix C to this report. viii.
Subject to Executive Councillor
approval of the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2024-2029, Annexes, and Year
1 action plan (attached at Appendices A,B & C to this report), gave
delegated authority to the Assistant Director of Housing & Homelessness to
agree any minor changes which may subsequently be required. 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 Strategy Manager. The Housing Strategy Manager, Joint Director for Planning, Assistant
Director for Housing and Homelessness said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
Used to have an Older Persons Housing Strategy
several years ago, as well as other separate housing related strategies, but
had moved towards having one Housing Strategy (as well as a statutory
Homelessness and Rough Sleeping Strategy) which covered all different groups of
people.
ii.
The requirement for a proportion of home ownership
in terms of affordable housing delivery had been in Council policy for several
years. Under the Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in
2006 which required 75% of new affordable homes on larger developments to be rented
homes, the remainder would be of an intermediate home ownership tenure.
National Planning Policy requires at least 10% of all homes on new developments
of 10 or more dwellings to be affordable home ownership. For the Council’s new policy
it was not being specified that this had to be shared ownership, but that shared
ownership was the preferred tenure when considering intermediate tenures, although
it was recognised that there may be areas within Greater Cambridgeshire where
this was not deliverable. For example, since the last strategy was introduced,
a new First Homes Policy had been introduced by the Government. A First Homes
Statement had been published on the Council’s website to explain why First Homes
did not really work in a high value area like Cambridge. Also, some Housing Associations were able to
cross subsidise the delivery of shared ownership properties to be able to
deliver affordable rent properties.
iii.
There was evidence provided through the work
carried out on the emerging new Local Plan which gave a starting point for the
sizes of affordable homes which might be required. There was a separate set of
individual criteria which is considered when each individual site comes forward
including the number of applicants on the Housing Register and how many homes are
becoming available in that area. Acknowledged that there could be differences
between City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council need. Will also
look at the size of properties required by people coming through the
homelessness route and any house size requirements through existing Section 106
Agreements across the wider development. For example in large scale
developments it might be more appropriate to develop smaller houses in one
phase of the development and take this into account when looking at the next
phase of development to try and get a balance across a development. The
affordable housing mix will be considered taking into account the overall
housing mix proposed for the development. iv.
The Housing Strategy was to be read in parallel
with the National Planning Policy Framework and would be used to shape third
party new development. The strategy was a facilitator alongside Planning Policy
which would look to customise the housing format, tenure split etc based upon
locality and circumstances. It would then be put in front of the Planning
Committee for their final judgment on the point of balance.
v.
With reference to Annex 5 (Build to Rent) a minimum
of 20% of homes in developments of 10 or more homes would be required to be
provided as affordable private rent and the rent should be set at least 20%
below market rent. At the moment there was no evidence to suggest that more
than 20% could be delivered. Including a higher target figure within the
strategy would need to be considered in the context of the national planning
guidance which set those figures. vi.
One of the other elements in the Build to Rent
Policy was that when large scale developments came forward with several
different tenures, then the council would seek 40% affordable housing across
the whole development. Whether this was achievable or not would have to be
considered on a case-by-case basis. vii.
The affordable private rent levels for Build to
Rent housing schemes as a percentage of market rent had to be determined
through the Local Plan process. The way that the affordable private rent
process is delivered is through the regulatory framework provided by the Town
and Country Planning Act. viii.
The design of new homes would be dealt with via the
planning process and would be bound by the requirements in the Local Plan and
any Supplementary Planning Documents. The Local Plan process was subject to
independent examination, so the policies (and requirements within them) were
appropriately tested. The Housing Strategy was a material planning
consideration but was not subject to the same examination process and could not
be used to set planning policy. However,
the Housing Strategy was the appropriate document to contain guidance on affordable
housing mixt, tenure, and form. ix.
Noted that the number of comments made on the draft
Housing Strategy during the consultation period were low in comparison to the
number of residents in Cambridge and corporately the council was looking at how
it can engage with residents better.
x.
When development applications came forward if they
were unable to meet requirements set out in the Housing Strategy, they would
need to provide evidence why. xi.
Had tried to set out within the Strategy that there
could be differences in certain areas of the strategy between Cambridge City
Council compared to South Cambridgeshire District Council. A Cambridge City
Council specific annex on a particular theme could be developed. However
consideration would need to be given to any impacts of this for example where
developments straddled the two authority’s boundaries. xii.
It was noted that requirements which were dictated
by the National Planning Policy Framework and national guidance and those which
could be set by the council could be made clearer within the strategy. The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0
against with 3 abstentions 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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Update on New Build Council Housing Delivery PDF 816 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision The report provided a regular quarterly update on the
City Council’s new housing delivery and development programme. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing i.
Noted the continued progress on the delivery of the approved
housing programme. ii.
Approved the updated Regeneration Policy as outlined in
Paragraph 11.1 and appendix 2 of the officer’s report. iii.
Noted that negotiations on commercial leases at Arbury Court
would now take account of the need to consider future options for a District
Centre. 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 Director (Development). The Assistant Director (Development) updated their report and advised
that properties at Brackyn Road were no longer being considered for potential
redevelopment as part of the Davy Road site. The properties that were under
consideration for redevelopment were 2-28b Davy Road, and the Council garages
on the site. A consultation with residents would be undertaken after the
pre-election period was over, with a view to providing a recommendation to the
Committee in September 2024. The Committee resolved by 6 votes in
favour to 0 against with 3 abstentions 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 Stanton House PDF 507 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision Report on building safety at Stanton House and future
use of the building. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing i.
Noted the cost of essential Compliance related works required
to Stanton House at £635,000. ii.
Noted the options appraisal for Stanton House carried out by
Rock Townsend Architects LLP and agreed in principle that it was no longer
viable to retain the building in its current form. iii.
Approved removing Stanton House from the Councils operational
Housing portfolio, which would include the planned decanting of all existing
residents in line with the Regeneration Policy which included information on
statutory home loss and disturbance payments. iv.
Approved a capital budget of £333,000 to cover the decanting
payments to residents of Statutory Home loss and Disturbance payments. This
budget would be drawn down from the existing budget approved for investment in
the delivery of new homes. v.
Agreed that there will be further consideration of the
redevelopment options for the Stanton House site that will be brought back to
this committee in September 2024 for decision. 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 Director for Housing and Homelessness. The Assistant Director for Housing and Homelessness said the following
in response to Members’ questions:
i.
Noted concerns expressed regarding the potential
loss of sheltered housing and replacement with family homes. The Council was
looking to bring forward an additional sheltered housing scheme which had 8
units, acknowledged this was smaller than Stanton House and that repairs were
currently being undertaken to the property. Commented that the Council needed
to understand what the older persons housing need was as currently there didn’t
appear to be a high demand for sheltered accommodation. However, there could be
a need that the council was not aware of.
ii.
Noted ward councillor’s preference for the
retention of social housing on the site. Options for the site (refurbishment /
redevelopment) were being considered afresh. Considerations would include
viability and what (if any) grant funding may be available. 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. |