Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Martinelli (Councillor Page-Croft  attended as the Alternate) and Councillor Smart.

Name	Item	Interest
Councillor Smith	19/34/EnC	Personal: Her new brother-in-law works for the Young Parent Project which received funding in the past.

 

The minutes of previous meetings were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendments

 

21 March 2019 – 19/23/EnC

In response to the report Councillors commented that the a tax on non-recyclable plastics would be beneficial was having an effect. Suggested more details could be included in the Resources and Waste Strategy on how costs were being pushed back to manufacturers, and recycling rates were increasing.

 

22 May 2019 – Attendees

Councillor Barnett now listed in apologies and Councillor Sheil marked as present. The version in the agenda pack marked Councillor Barnett as present and omitted Councillor Sheil.

There were no public questions.

Under paragraph 4.2.1 of the Council Procedure Rules, the Chair used her discretion to alter the order of the agenda items. However, for ease of the reader, these minutes will follow the order of the agenda.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report presented for the Environmental Services and City Centre Portfolio:

       i.          A summary of actual income and expenditure compared to the final budget for 2018/19 (outturn position).

     ii.          Revenue and capital budget variances with explanations.

   iii.          Specific requests to carry forward funding available from budget underspends into 2019/20.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment & City Centre

Approved carry forward requests:

       i.          Totalling £79,530 revenue funding from 2018/19 to 2019/20, as detailed in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Of £960k capital resources from 2018/19 to 2019/20 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D of the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

Officers said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          Head of Finance: The budget variance for Tourism/Visit Cambridge and Beyond (ref P29 of the agenda pack) was also referenced in the February 2019 Budget Setting Report. When the Tourism Service transferred to Visit Cambridge and Beyond there were some set up costs recorded as a loan. It has become apparent Visit Cambridge and Beyond cannot repay the loan so it has been written off.

     ii.          Strategic Director: There was no target date for Vehicle Replacement Programme (ref P31 of the agenda pack). The City Council had a commitment to move to electric or low emission vehicles. This was dependent on what the market could supply in terms of practical vehicles. Older council fleet vehicles would be replaced first when they were at the end of their life cycle. Replacement depended on available electric vehicle options, rather than budget availability. Officers had undertaken a fleet review. Vehicles were travelling the minimum distance required to collect waste (ie operating efficiently).

 

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.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report provided a summary of the progress and performance for the Greater Cambridge Shared Waste Service (GCSWS) during 2018/19.

 

The principle of producing a single Annual Report for the shared services was agreed at committee in July 2015. The overarching Annual Report for the Greater Cambridge Shared Services covers the Waste, Planning and Internal Audit services, but only the Waste Service falls under this Committee’s remit and therefore the service report has been extracted and included in the Officer’s report.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment & City Centre

Noted the contents of the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of GCSWS.

 

The Head of GCSWS said the following in response to Members’ questions:

     i.        The recycling rate was the amount of waste recycled out of the total amount collected. This was based on the Defra national weight based scheme.

    ii.        It was not possible to identify recycling rates for different city wards, but information could be broken down into amounts of dry or organic waste. It may be possible to identify a daily recycling rate in future.

   iii.        Seasonal variance affected recycling rates shown on P36 of the agenda. The amount of organic waste collected affected the variance.

  iv.        Officers did not recommend amending the recycling target although it had been met. Seasonal variances would affect if a target was met or not.

   v.        Giving people bin collection options had stopped contamination of recycling materials with low quality waste.

  vi.        50% was the national recycling target. The Shared Waste Service had exceeded these despite a change in the waste service in 2017. The European Union target was higher. Officers expected the national and EU targets to rise to 65% in future, which would impact on Shared Waste Service targets.

 vii.        The City Council was in the top quartile of recycling rates when compared to other cities. Some other city’s recycling rates were higher, but others were lower.

viii.        Central Government were expected to develop a 25 year waste strategy in the next 12-15 months. Officers recommended making no change to recycling rate targets until the Strategy was published.

 

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.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report presented for the Communities Portfolio:

       i.          A summary of actual income and expenditure compared to the final budget for 2018/19 (outturn position).

     ii.          Revenue and capital budget variances with explanations.

   iii.          Specific requests to carry forward funding available from budget underspends into 2019/20.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Approved carry forward requests:

       i.          Totalling £56,000 revenue funding from 2018/19 to 2019/20, as detailed in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Of £284k capital resources from 2018/19 to 2019/20 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D of the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

In response to the report Councillors sought clarification on the following:

       i.          If we are not fully refurbing The Meadows toilets, what interim repairs/improvements will be made and how much is this going to cost?

     ii.          What was the reason for the gas bill overspend at Clay Farm?

 

The Head of Community Services undertook to provide information after the committee. She was able to clarify:

       i.          Minor/maintenance work was being undertaken prior to the wider refurbishment work of The Meadows.

     ii.          A technical issue had led to the higher than expected gas bill. The wrong tariff was set up which led to extra (unexpected) charges. This was corrected after the first month.

 

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.

Matter for Decision

Following the transfer of contracts and services from Cambridge Live to Cambridge City Council in April 2019, the Council intends to commission an independent review of the events leading up to the point at which the trust was unable to continue, in order to better understand what could have been done differently or how best to approach future arrangements. The Officer’s report set out the reasons for review and terms of reference. The review is scheduled to report to Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee in October 2019. The report and review are in response to the motion approved at Council on February 19th 2019:

 

“Council welcomes the emergency protection provided to the Cambridge Live programme and its customers, given the projected financial losses which jeopardised its future solvency, by returning it in-house to the council. It appreciates the cross-party work of all those involved in implementing the decision and particularly wishes to acknowledge the work of the current Cambridge Live Board.

 

Council recognises the substantial potential public cost of this rescue, and the role of the Council as founding sponsor and major customer. It is therefore important to understand how far the Council could have done anything differently, either in setup or relationship management, and what key learning points arise.

 

We therefore request officers to recommend to the June meeting of the Environment & Community Scrutiny Committee terms of reference for an independent review of these issues to report back to a subsequent scrutiny committee.”

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Approved the Purpose, Scope and Method of the review, as set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Strategic Director.

 

The Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The purpose of the review would be to learn from the setup of Cambridge Live and what happened afterwards. Specifically if the City Council or Cambridge Live could have done more to identify issues before Cambridge Live reported issues to the Council.

     ii.          Contacts could be invited, but not compelled, to attend the Review.

   iii.          The report would be brought back to committee in future. Some details may need to be anonymised before being published to avoid people refusing to testify. Answers needed to be open and honest whilst avoiding respondents being vilified in public.

 

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.

Matter for Decision

The Council uses S106 contributions paid by developers to mitigate the impact of developments on facilities and amenities in Cambridge. In line with the arrangements for the Community Facilities S106 funding round 2019, agreed by the Executive Councillor on 21st March 2019, applications have been invited for proposals to improve community facilities in Cambridge. Five applications have been received and assessed against the S106 selection criteria. This report summarises those applications and assessments and makes five recommendations for S106 funding.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

     i.        Agreed the following S106 Community Facility grants and funding, detailed in Section 3 and Appendices 1 and 2 of the Officer’s report, subject to:

·        planning and building control requirements being satisfactorily met;

·        business case approval;

·        signed community grant agreement, securing appropriate community use of the facilities; and

·        any other conditions highlighted in the report.

 

Ref	Grant	Organisation	Purpose
R1	£3,000	Arbury Court office Cambridge Council for Voluntary Services (CCVS)	To transform an underused store room into an additional meeting space that will be available for hire and for groups to use.
R2	£15,000	Brown's Field Community Centre Cambridge City Council	Creation of a community kitchen space in the main foyer area. (5.6m²). Change of use of the current kitchen to create a catering standard kitchen (11m²).
R3	£15,000	Chesterton Methodist Church (CMC)	Construction of a new accessible toilet block, and improvements for wheelchair access.
R4	£800	Nun’s Way Pavilion North Cambridge Community Partnership	Shelving for storage space.
R5	£15,000	St George's Church	Provision of a hearing loop and AV equipment to enhance the facilities in the hall.   Ceiling for church kitchen.

 

    ii.        Allocated up to £55,000 of existing generic S106 contributions for the development of a community room as part of the nursery building on the 75 Cromwell Road development, as detailed in paragraph 4.2.

   iii.        Requested officers to review and report back to this Committee any of these S106-funded projects which do not progress to the implementation stage within 18 months.

 

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 Community Funding and Development Manager.

 

The Community Funding and Development Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

     i.        The purpose of S106 was not to plug gaps but to help the city council target areas where extra investment was needed to improve facilities.

    ii.        Officers were looking for opportunities to enhance facilities where developments were coming forward in the city, particularly if there were gaps in facility provision.

 

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.

Matter for Decision

The Council produced a revised and updated Anti-Poverty Strategy for the period from April 2017 to March 2020. The Council’s Anti-Poverty Strategy aims to: improve the standard of living and daily lives of those residents in Cambridge who are currently experiencing poverty; and to help alleviate issues that can lead households on low incomes to experience financial pressures.

 

The revised Anti-Poverty Strategy sets out 5 key objectives and 57 associated actions to reduce poverty in Cambridge over the next three years. This report provides an update on progress in delivering key actions identified for 2018/19, with a particular focus on new areas of activity introduced in the strategy.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Noted the progress in delivering actions to reduce poverty in Cambridge during 2018/19.

 

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 Strategy and Partnerships Manager.

 

The Strategy and Partnerships Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The City Council adopted a Living Wage policy in respect of contractors. There have been no issues as procurement guidance details were clear.

     ii.          Schools were the responsibility of the County Council. The City Council had undertaken some project work to help children with financial literacy.

   iii.          A number of measures helped to increase the number of concession memberships for people using sports and swimming facilities.

 

The Strategic Director said a new community centre would replace Buchan Street Community Centre and The Meadows when those sites were used for affordable housing. Appropriate facilities would be provided between the City Council and private developers.

 

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.

Matter for Decision

The Council’s Single Equality Scheme (SES) was approved by the Executive Councillor for Communities at the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee on 4 October 2018. The SES sets out how the organisation will challenge discrimination and promote equal opportunity in all aspects of its work over a three year period (2018 – 2021).

 

The Officer’s report provided an update on progress in delivering key actions set out in the SES for 2018/19. It also proposes some new actions for delivery during 2019/20.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

     i.        Noted the progress in delivering equalities actions during 2018/19.

    ii.        Approved the actions proposed in SES for delivery during 2019/20.

 

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 Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer.

 

The Strategic Director, Head of Community Services, Strategy and Partnerships Manager plus Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

     i.        The Children & Young People's Services Manager could give an update after the meeting on the period poverty campaign. She was leading on the working group that liaised with other public sector, schools and private organisations.

    ii.        Free sanitary products had been rolled out to all council owned buildings. These were funded by a number of sources at no cost to the council. The Council’s role was to provide sanitary products and ensure people could access them.

   iii.        The Council was looking at data it held on communities so Community Officers could better work with residents and respond to their needs.

  iv.        The Council had an action plan on how to support disabled and BME job applicants in order to ensure that the Council’s employment and procurement policies/practices were non-discriminatory, and to work towards a more representative workforce within the Council. The action plan was due for renewal in November 2019. It was periodically reviewed to ensure there were no issues (none found to date).

   v.        The Council monitored who applied for jobs. There were challenges in overcoming stereotypes and perceptions that people held about working for the Council.

  vi.        The Council did a lot of work to help lonely people, through its community centres and by working with other organisations.

 vii.        Objective 1 of the Single Equality Scheme was being reviewed so the Council could better support people who hoarded, but still remove their hoarded items. Work would be undertaken with partners such as the Fire Service.

viii.        Contrary to rumours, there was no change in council toilet policy, particularly any that affected the LGBT community.

 

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.

The Streets & Open Spaces Portfolio was now split between the Executive Councillor for Communities plus the Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre.

 

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report presented for the Streets & Open Spaces Portfolio:

       i.          A summary of actual income and expenditure compared to the final budget for 2018/19 (outturn position).

     ii.          Revenue and capital budget variances with explanations.

   iii.          Specific requests to carry forward funding available from budget underspends into 2019/20.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment & City Centre plus Executive Councillor for Communities

Approved carry forward requests:

       i.          Totalling £50,000 revenue funding from 2018/19 to 2019/20, as detailed in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Of £1,226k capital resources from 2018/19 to 2019/20 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D of the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance. The Officer updated her report by correcting a typographical error. £20k had been omitted from the carry forward for Mill Road cemetery access and main footpath on P127 of the agenda pack (Appendix D). This would be corrected in the report going to Council on 18 July. Recommendation 2b in the Officer’s report to Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee was amended as follows:

Of £1,206k £1,226k capital resources from 2018/19 to 2019/20 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D of the Officer’s report

 

The Head of Finance said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          Work on the A14 had led to a decline in demand for the crematorium service. This should recover when the road re-opened. The City Council expected some compensation from Highways England.

     ii.          Income levels may not recover fully to pre-A14 work levels due to competition from another crematorium in the area.

   iii.          The City Council Crematorium should benefit from A14 road works in the long term as it would be in a better location.

   iv.          For accounting reasons, the cleaning contract (Officer report Appendix B) shows an overspend in this financial year so it could be redistributed in the next financial year budget.

    v.          Water providers had failed to submit bills for some years then put in a bulk invoice for the last financial year. The figure therefore showed as an overspend in the budget (although it was a correction not an error on our 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.

Public Question

A member of the public made the following points:

     i.        It was hard to separate tourism from touting.

    ii.        Expressed concern that a ban on touts had been successful so they morphed into walking tours to avoid the ban.

   iii.        There appeared to be limited enforcement action being taken against walking tours. Queried if the Council could join up with other agencies eg the Police.

  iv.        Tour operators saw fines (if caught) as business costs due to the high profits they could make.

   v.        Queried if changes to pedestrian areas could design out the tour/tout problem.

  vi.        There were 31 designated places to sell services, enforcement should be undertaken to ensure only these were used.

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

     i.        The Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) had been successful.

    ii.        It would be reviewed in summer 2019.

   iii.        She was unclear if the PSPO could be extended to cover walking tours or punt touts.

  iv.        Undertook to liaise with the member of the public after the meeting.

   v.        The Executive Councillor for Communities was part of the Cambridge BID. Cambridge BID and the City Council acknowledged residents were affected by tourism issues and were looking at options to address these.

 

The Safer Communities Manager said:

     i.        Tours were outside the remit of the PSPO and Community Safety Officers.

    ii.        The PSPO only covered verbally advertised punt tours. It was aimed at stopping anti-social behaviour not walking tours per se.

   iii.        The PSPO could not be changed without substantial public consultation and in effect a new PSPO being put in place.

 

Matter for Decision

The Public Spaces Protection Order (Touting) 2016 (“Order”) is due to expire on the 14 September 2016. At Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee in October 2018 the Executive Councillor made the decision to review the Order in 2019 in advance of the Order reaching its three year maximum duration.

 

At any point before expiry of the Order, the Council can extend it by up to three years if they consider it is necessary to prevent the original behaviour from occurring or recurring. They should consult with the local police and any other community representatives they think appropriate before doing so.

 

The Officer’s report revisits the terms of the Order (Appendix A), reviews its impact, considers the results of the consultation carried out with police, community leaders and interested parties and, considers the case for extending the Order for a further three years.

 

The responses to consultations are examined and recommendations are made for the Executive Councillor regarding the extension of the Order and other issues raised during the consultation process.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Transport and

Community Safety

     i.        Approved the extension of the Order, in its current form as set out in Appendix A of the Officer’s report, for a further duration of three years to 15 September 2022.

    ii.        Agreed to address the issues raised through the consultation process by:

·        Continuing to enforce breaches of the Order.

·        Monitoring the situation with regard to how walking tours are being sold.

·        Reviewing the situation with regard to touting outside the restricted area in 2022 when considering the next stages of the Order in the event of an extension being agreed.

·        Asking partners to consider improving the information and signposting to direct visitors to authorised punting stations and updating the voluntary code of practice.

 

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 Safer Communities Manager.

 

In response to the report Councillors asked what would be the timescale to get a new PSPO. The Safer Communities Manager said it would be monitored this year (2019), a consultation could be undertaken in the autumn prior to a new PSPO being implemented in 2020. The current PSPO focussed on ASB/nuisance, so there would need to be evidence to justify why walking tours should be included ie walking tours were causing the same kind of nuisance that punt tours used to.

 

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.