A Cambridge City Council website
A Cambridge City Council website
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 for Absence Minutes: Apologies were received from Councillor Payne who would arrive late. Councillor Levien would attend as alternate until she arrived. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes:
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2024 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chair subject to the following amendment: (24/7/EnC) Councillor Glasberg requested a change to the recommendation in the officer's report to remove (O) ‘Cambridge Canoe Club additional storage’ as planning permission has not been received for the Canoe Club extension. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Petition: Climate and Ecology Bill A petition has been received containing over 50 valid signatures stating the following: Statement: We, the undersigned, petition Cambridge City Council to: (i) Support the Climate and Ecology Bill (CE Bill); (ii) Inform the local media of this decision; (iii) Write to our local MP, Daniel Zeichner, asking him to support the Bill; and (iv) Write to Zero Hour, the organisers of the cross-party campaign for the CE Bill, expressing Cambridge City Council’s support (councils@zerohour.uk). Justification: The cross-party CE Bill would require the UK Government to develop and achieve a new environmental strategy. As the crises in climate and nature are deeply intertwined the Bill requires a new plan to: · reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with the 1.5°C required under the UK’s Paris Agreement obligations; · set nature measurably on the path to recovery by 2030; · prioritise nature in decision-making; · end fossil fuel production and imports as rapidly as possible; and · provide for re-training for those currently working in fossil fuel industries. Originally introduced to Parliament by Caroline Lucas, it came before the House of Commons in May 2023 as a cross-party Bill. Cambridge City Council needs to join other councils, along with 881 organisations, politicians, and scientists from all over the UK and across 12 political parties, as well as some 42,000 members of the public, in giving it their backing. The petition organiser will be given 5 minutes to present
the petition at the meeting and the petition will then be discussed by
Councillors for a maximum of 15 minutes. Minutes: The Lead Petitioner made a presentation to Committee
setting out background information. Statement: We, the undersigned, petition Cambridge City Council to:
(i) Support the Climate and Ecology Bill (CE Bill); (ii) Inform the local media
of this decision; (iii) Write to our local MP, Daniel Zeichner,
asking him to support the Bill; and (iv) Write to Zero Hour, the organisers of the cross-party campaign for the CE Bill,
expressing Cambridge City Council’s support (councils@zerohour.uk). Justification: The cross-party CE Bill would require the UK
Government to develop and achieve a new environmental strategy. As the crises
in climate and nature are deeply intertwined the Bill requires a new plan to: ·
reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in line with the 1.5°C required under the UK’s Paris Agreement obligations; ·
set nature measurably on
the path to recovery by 2030; ·
prioritise nature in decision-making; ·
end fossil fuel production
and imports as rapidly as possible; and ·
provide for re-training for
those currently working in fossil fuel industries. Originally
introduced to Parliament by Caroline Lucas, it came before the House of Commons
in May 2023 as a cross-party Bill. Cambridge City Council needs to join other
councils, along with 881 organisations, politicians, and scientists from all
over the UK and across 12 political parties, as well as some 42,000 members of
the public, in giving it their backing. In response to the petition: i.
The Executive Councillor
for Climate Action and Environment said: a. Supported the petition and undertook to bring a motion
on climate change to Council in May 2024. b. The City Council was recognised
as a leader in the field of councils taking climate change action. c. Cambridge was an ‘A List City’ by the Carbon
Disclosure Project. ii.
Lib Dem Councillors
asked for evidence-based targets and strategies to meet net zero as soon as
possible but supported the petition. iii.
Green Councillors
supported the petition and referred to the Cambridge City Council Climate
Change Emergency Declaration in 2019.
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
Public Questions Minutes: Question 1 Cam Valley Forum understand
that £480,000 of the £550,000 that was allocated for the 'River Themed Public
Art Programme', in 2016, remains unspent. We request to be involved in
consultations on how this public money might be used, and ask that this is not
delayed. It was thought that it
might fund a sequel to the highly acclaimed film 'Pure Clean Water' about Chalk
streams. It might tap into the rich local musical talent to sponsor the
commissioning and performing of musical compositions inspired by the Cam.
It could fund a project by Rowan, who produce outstanding works of art, working
with adults with learning disabilities, such as the recently completed mural to
celebrate Cherry Hinton Brook. It could fund outreach into schools' art
departments, and it could heighten awareness of the beauty of the Cam and the
need to nurture our river. Perhaps it could fund a
sculpture that would appeal to locals and visitors alike. Many cities and
towns have commissioned such works of art to enrich areas of high footfall by
being relevant to the specific history of the place. Might there a
life-size sculpture depicting the launderesses at work on Launderess Green, or
a sculpture to celebrate the many years of river swimming at Sheep’s
Green? Such sculptures should be
well affordable within the allocated funds. We note that in 2019 the
London Borough of Waltham Forest commissioned a statue of their local footballer,
Harry Kane, which cost just £7,200. We urge that the money
available should be put to good use bringing lasting benefit and joy to people
who love Cambridge and its river. It might even have the potential to
reverse the tide of defeatism and depression that seems to be engulfing our
city? We look forward to hearing
how Cam Valley Forum might be able to assist in steering this arts programme
forward. The Executive Councillor for Communities responded:
i.
There was no public art S106 funding still
allocated to the River Cam public art programme.
ii.
In March 2016, following a report to the Community
Services Scrutiny Committee, the then Executive Councillor for City Centre and
Public Places agreed a River Cam public art programme with a maximum combined
budget of up to £550,000. This was to be funded in part by an allocation of
£450,000 of public art S106 contributions, plus external funding bids. However,
no external funding was secured, so the funding available was focussed on the
£450,000 S106 funding.
iii.
In January 2018, again following a report to the
Community Services Scrutiny Committee, the then Executive Councillor for
Streets & Open Spaces approved the use of up to £120,000 (from the £450,000
of S106 funding allocated to the River Cam public art programme) for the River
Cam (later, called the ‘To the River’) public art residency.
iv.
In October 2019, following a report to the
Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee, the then Executive Councillor for
Communities agreed to de-allocate £330,000 of public art S106 contributions
allocated to the River Cam public art programme. This was returned to the
Council’s public art S106 funds for use on other public art projects. This
meant that only the £120,000 allocation for the ‘To the river’ public art residency
remained.
v.
In March 2022, following a report to the
Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee, the Leader and Executive
Councillor for Communities agreed to allocate between a further £80,000 to
£150,000 of off-site public art S106 ‘strategic’ funds to enable the delivery
and/or future development of the public art installation arising from the “To
the river” residency, subject to a constructive public consultation response,
planning permission and other necessary consents and confirmation of project
affordability within the proposed increased budget range. Question 2 Abbey People feels that the decision making on the S106 Public Art
allocations has been patently unfair, and in breach of the spirit and structure
of the Community Wealth Building Strategy. The decision to fund two centrally decided projects (More Playful Art
Please and Urban Voices) instead of community generated projects is in breach
of the council’s Community Wealth Building policy. These projects were
centrally run by officers and have been developed by central officers rather
than community groups. Using any area allocation for a central project should
only be a last resort if funding is in danger of expiring. As there were a
number of local projects that could have been developed, we feel strongly that
any Abbey S106 art allocation should be allocated to one of the local community
lead projects, rather than central projects. To decide otherwise is in breach
of the spirit and letter of the Community Wealth Building strategy. We feel the decisions and allocation was patently unfair, paragraph of
the report 1.2 b states: b. Although a grant application from Romsey ward did not fully meet the
selection criteria, it has provided a starting point for developing an enhanced
project at Romsey Recreation Ground as part of the Commissioning Programme.
This would engage local residents about what that local green space means to
them and community life. As the report has stated that the application did not meet selection
criteria but has been taken forward for commissioning, this opportunity should
have been offered to all the unsuccessful applicants before any local S106 Art
allocation was applied to centrally decided and run projects. We ask that Councillors reject the report’s recommendations and ask
officers to review the applications with a new panel, giving all applicants
that did not meet selection criteria the opportunity to develop an enhanced project
as part of the Commissioning Programme. This work should be completed before
any centrally-originated projects are taken forward. The Executive Councillor for Communities responded:
i.
The report to the Scrutiny Committee, particularly
in sections 3 and 4, provided a comprehensive explanation of the background
to/and the grants round process, including the criteria used to assess
applications. The applications were assessed by the Councils expert officers in
Public Art, Culture, Community Development, the Community Grants team and a
subject matter expert on S106 funding. The expert Panel assessed the grant
applications to determine if they would meet the purposes for which public art
S106 funding was intended and which, offered less flexibility than other
funding streams. If a proposal did not meet the criteria, then it could not be
funded.
ii.
In March 2022, the Executive Councillor at the time
approved a Manifesto for Public Art, called ‘The Cambridge Perspective – Making
Public Art Work’ in response to concerns about expiry dates related to s106
public art contributions. Officers were also instructed to seek and identify
eligible proposals for new public art projects through the development of a
Commissioning Programme to ensure that the S106 contributions that fund public
art projects could be used effectively and on time, so as not to have to return
the funding to developers.
iii.
As well as developing the Commissioning Programme,
the Council had undertaken a 2023/24 S106 public art grants round to be able to
take stock of ideas from local communities for local public art projects (which
included the application from Abbey People) and to support the effective use of
time limited S106; a belt and braces approach had been taken to ensure projects
were funded on time and with genuine community benefits.
iv.
The development of the Programme involved
considering feedback from a public consultation for the Manifesto,
conversations with local communities and external partners as well as
colleagues from across the Council. It is underpinned by the principles and
criteria set out in the Council’s Public Art Supplementary Planning Document
(SPD) and links to other council strategies including the Community Wealth
Building Strategy. The two projects the questioner referred to had not been
proposed from a central Council position but rather through a consultation
process and from community feedback to develop projects with meaning to
community and to meet funding deadlines.
v.
The Council must follow established criteria and a
decision-making process in relation to Section 106 allocations, but in keeping
with the spirit of the Community Wealth Building Strategy. The Council sought
to engage community groups in the process where possible through the Grants
Round process and through proposing the More Play Please! And Urban Voices
projects in the Commissioning Programme. Question 3 I ask the following
question as Chair of the Friends of Sheep's Green and Lammas Land. A quarter of
children are obese when they leave primary school, and the projected cost of
childhood obesity for the NHS has recently been estimated at £8 billion. We are
concerned to learn about the proposal (in the Outdoor Play Spaces Investment
Strategy document) to rank playgrounds into tiers, with a view to closing lower
tiers and concentrating resources in large play spaces. Having an easily
accessible local playground may be the only feasible opportunity for exercise
for many children. Larger playgrounds will also become less attractive to
children if they become overcrowded. A stated aim of the project is 'Ensuring
that the play space provision aligns with the local community’s needs'
(4.1(b)). Please can you explain, then, why no consultation with the city's
playground users on their needs has been undertaken? We would also like to know
more about the proposal to resurface the playgrounds with 'versatile,
year-round surfaces'. There is growing scientific concern about the toxic
off-gassing of surfaces made from rubber crumb, i.e. recycled tyres. Surfaces
made of rubber crumb have been found to contain significant levels of
carcinogens and neuro-toxins, including lead and other heavy metals. These pose
major health risks, especially to children and pregnant women. Rubber crumb is
increasingly banned in US playgrounds on health grounds. Please can you confirm
that rubber crumb will not be used in the renovation of Cambridge playgrounds,
and that the toxicity profile of all potential surfaces will be carefully
reviewed? The Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services responded:
i.
Provision of play areas was incredibly important to
the Council. Thought the points raised by the questioner about the shocking
prevalence of childhood obesity really underlined how essential it was that
everyone did their part to promote physical activity and healthy lifestyles
from a young age.
ii.
The tier system in the Officer’s report was a tool
(and information) to feed into decisions the Council made in the future about
where to strategically target the limited resources we had. It’s about
identifying gaps in provision for different age groups, and different types and
sizes of play area across the city. For example, one of the clear messages from
the tier system was an under-provision within the Newnham area, and knowing
that, the Council could look to address it.
iii.
This wasn’t about concentrating resources into
larger sites, it’s about helping the Council make informed, data-driven
investment decisions, which also took into account local information and rates
of usage. Regarding consultation, the Executive Councillor wished to reassure
the public speaker that this was about the underlying principles and tools, and
that consultation would be important in decisions made using them.
iv.
When we go forward and look to invest more in play
areas, the Council would continue to put public engagement at the heart of
that, as with the recent investment of £165,000 into Pulley Park in King’s
Hedges (the new equipment, would have a real positive impact on those
communities). This investment strategy was about doing more of that.
v.
It’s also about equipping the Planning Team with
the evidence they need to push for better, more coordinated provision from new
developments. Developers often met their planning obligations by installing
very small play areas on sites. Whilst there was a need for those, what the
data from this work had shown, was that there could sometimes be too many of
those, when what the Council really needed was a mix of large and small-scale
provision. Having this data would empower the Council to push for that through
the S106 mechanism.
vi.
Was happy to provide reassurance on the point about
health and safety; the Council would conduct thorough safety reviews of the
materials used in play areas. Loose materials like rubber crumb were
detrimental on environmental grounds as they could easily spread around and act
to introduce microplastics into wildlife ecosystems. Stated there was no reason
we would want to use loose materials like this. Question 4 When the issue of the lack of Traveller sites
in Cambridge was raised by a public question last month, this Council
responded: “Once we have received the final report from
the [Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment], which should be
ready around springtime, we can understand the need for both permanent and
temporary stopping sites in the Greater Cambridge area and where it would be
best to locate a site if a need is demonstrated.” But the ‘biodiversity proposals’ for Arbury
Town Park — from which Travellers have been evicted on several occasions in
recent years — demonstrate that this Council understands full well
the urgent need for temporary stopping sites in Cambridge. With wire fencing,
bollards and soil bunds blocking all possible unauthorised vehicle access,
these plans are transparently contrived to block Travellers from staying on the
green space. It is all well and good to say that the local
community is inconvenienced when Travellers are forced to park their vehicles
in Arbury Town Park in order to, for example, visit family or attend a funeral.
But unauthorised encampments will continue in Cambridge for as long as
Travellers are not provided with legal stopping places. No amount of evictions
and hostile architecture will change that. As this Council stated in its July
2021 ‘Motion on [the] Policing Bill’: “No family willingly stops somewhere they
are not welcome”. Due to the long-standing policy failings of
Cambridge’s local authorities, Travellers simply have no option but to stop
without authorisation. It is egregious that this Council is finding new ways to
punish them for this, all the while the GTANA report continues to face delay
after delay. What progress, if any, has this Council made
towards finding possible locations and funding sources for temporary stopping
site provision in Cambridge, and towards providing negotiated stopping
agreements in the interim? Why does this Council appear to be moving faster to
forcibly exclude Travellers from Cambridge than to accommodate them? The Executive Councillor for Communities responded:
i.
A contractor was appointed in 2019 to carry out an
assessment of the Accommodation Needs of Gypsies, Travellers, Travelling
Showpeople, bargee travellers, and other boat and caravan dwellers. This
covered not only Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire but other authorities
in Cambridgeshire and beyond. In early 2020 the work was paused for a few
months as face-to-face interviews could not be carried out due to the Covid
pandemic. Following lengthy discussions with the consultants the contract was
subsequently terminated in late summer 2022, as the local authorities who had
commissioned the work were not satisfied that it was sufficiently robust to
give an accurate picture and stand up to scrutiny.
ii.
The contractors currently working for Cambridge
City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils were formally appointed in
spring 2023 and their work had progressed according to plan. Officers received
the first draft report at the end of last week and were currently working
through the initial findings and further work would be required before it was
ready to be published.
iii.
A publication date for after the May elections
would need to be agreed between the two councils.
iv.
Some work had already taken place in trying to
identify suitable solutions for enabling Gypsy/Roma/Traveller communities to
stop temporarily in the area. Officers would continue to consider options and
would reach out again to wider partners once we could share the results of the report
with them.
v.
The Council was consulting on biodiversity
initiatives in Arbury Town Park aiming to seek a range of views and
opinions. These proposals were not intended to target or exclude
Travellers from the area. The measures mentioned by the public speaker
were being implemented at the request of residents’ and the Council designed
the response with the primary aim of protecting and improving the biodiversity
of the park and to ensure its sustainability for all members of the community. Supplementary question: Made the following supplementary points:
i.
It strained credibility the biodiversity project
was not a way to stop Gypsy/Roma/Traveller communities using the land in
Trumpington.
ii.
This appeared to be part of a pattern to stop
Gypsy/Roma/Traveller communities using land in general. The Executive Councillor responded:
i.
Biodiversity initiatives in Arbury Town Park were
planned for some time after the building was finished.
ii.
The latest initiative was in response to
consultation with residents (undertaken as standard) as part of an
Environmental Improvement Programme project to improve the area. Question 5 This question is submitted on behalf of the Friends of Sheep’s Green Learner Pool and
relates to Item 11 on the Agenda. S106 contributions are paid by
developers to mitigate the impact of development on communities. Why, therefore
is it recommended that the largest contribution of this year’s generic S106
2023/24 sports and community facilities funding (£40,000) be allocated to a
Private Limited Company for the purpose of building a large extension for
storing members’ canoes, which will involve developing public
Common Land that will deprive the public of access to land that has been in
their use for over 1,000 years? The Cambridge Canoe Club has many
supporters, but this is a commercial enterprise unavailable to general members
of the public. People cannot turn up at the Club and just take out a canoe, and
becoming a member costs money and involves undertaking training that is
frequently oversubscribed. Furthermore, planning permission
has not yet been granted. The application is contentious because it does not
comply with the requirements outlined by the Secretary of State regarding
changes to Common Land and it may not actually be granted permission. This
raises two concerns. First, on Page 11 of today’s meeting papers, it says that
“At 18/01/24 Committee Members agreed to delay grant funding for Canoe Club
until planning permission was received.” This risks putting undue pressure on
the Planning Committee to approve the application. Secondly, there is a concern
that, even if planning were to be granted, the project may not be completed
within the allotted time frame, depriving the public of money that could fund
more timely improvements to other City facilities. Cambridge City Council is committed
to Equality and Diversity, and yet proposing to fund development on Common Land
in this way discriminates directly against low-income groups and the children
and young people that depend on free access to Common Land for their
recreation. Funding per play park in Cambridge is at a shockingly low c. £1,602
per annum (see Item 12) making the decision to award £40,000 to a
Private Limited Company baffling. The Friends of Sheep’s Green
Learner Pool have repeatedly asked the Council to reinstate the heating of the
Learner Pool, something that was in operation when the pool was first built in
the 1970s. The Learner Pool is the only facility in the city where children can
learn to swim for free. It is a vital resource that saves lives and it deserves
investment. The Friends of the Learner Pool were told we were not eligible to
apply for S106 funding, and yet the Learner Pool is exactly the sort of
facility that should be deserving of developer funding. It is free. It benefits
the most disadvantaged in our society, especially children who come every year
from the most deprived areas of the City. It is hugely popular on hot days and
local schools have told us that they would use it for swimming lessons if the
water was heated. We therefore ask the Executive
Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services why he is recommending funding a
Private company rather than using developer contributions for the genuine
benefit of the City, for example, by properly maintaining and heating the Learner Pool
– a facility that would benefit countless children into the future? The Executive Councillor for Communities responded:
i.
The question did not actually relate to item 11
(2023/24 S106 funding round [Streets & Open Spaces]) on the agenda of the
Environment & Community Scrutiny Committee meeting on 21 March 2024. This
was not a matter for the Executive Councillor for the City Services and Open
Spaces.
ii.
Instead, it related to the report on the 2023/24
S106 funding round [Community and Sports Facilities], which was considered by
the Committee on 18 January 2024 and which came under the remit of the
Executive Councillor for Communities (Councillor Rachel Wade).
iii.
Officers offered to withdraw the recommendation in the
18/1/2024 report - for a £40,000 grant to be made to Cambridge Canoe Club -
when it became clear at the committee meeting that planning approval was still
awaited (because the funding round selection criteria excluded proposals
requiring planning permission).
iv.
Page 8 of the Committee’s 21 March 2024 agenda
papers included the minutes of the 18/1/24 meeting which state that “Councillor
Glasberg requested a change to the recommendation in the Officer’s report to
remove (O) ‘Cambridge Canoe Club additional storage’….The Committee unanimously
approved this amended recommendation. The Committee unanimously resolved to
endorse the recommendations as amended.”
v.
The S106 funding round guidance made clear that
community groups and sports clubs could apply for a S106 grant, provided that
they both met the selection criteria and would be prepared to enter into a
community use agreement for making the improved facilities available for
community use and/or affordable hire for an agreed number of hours per week for
five years. This was highlighted in the first paragraph of the front page of
the grant guidance and was reflected in selection criteria 4 on page 3 of the
guidance. Question 6 We are delighted with the progress of the
Herbicide Reduction Plan as discussed at recent meetings of the Herbicide
Reduction Working Group on which we sit, and as outlined in the latest Report (https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/documents/s65481/Final
of Herbicide Use Reduction Plan with Appendices and EQIA 060324.pdf). We look
forward to further collaboration with Cambridge City Council now that the
purchase of a range of new equipment has been approved which will allow for the
rollout of herbicide-free weed control across the city. We are especially keen
that our combined public communications plan is pursued urgently given the
misleading media coverage over Cambridgeshire County Council’s disappointing
reversal of its earlier decision to stop using herbicides on its
Highways. It is important that residents are aware of the interrelated
ecological, public health, and disability rights justifications for the City
Council’s Herbicide Reduction Plan, to encourage both ongoing public support,
as well as a wider shift away from herbicides and insecticides on privately
owned land. As agreed at recent Working Group Meetings, can
the Report please be amended to include reference to two current initiatives
that depend, and build on the success of the HPR? i) our Pesticide-Free Schools
(https://www.pesticidefreecambridge.org/schools-campaign),
backed by Cambridge City Council, Cambridgeshire county Council, and the
combined authority Mayor. ii) Pesticide-Free Cambridge Colleges, a
collaboration between ourselves and Cambridge Climate Society (https://www.pesticidefreecambridge.org/colleges-campaign). Finally, the disability access element of
pavement plants is mentioned four times in the Report, under 3.4a, 4c, 10b, and
again in the EQIA (9), where weeds are also presented as potentially hazardous
to parents with buggies and prams. We feel it is vital to include
reference to pesticide exposure itself, even at very low doses, as not only a
public health and biodiversity issue, but also a disability access one which
impacts disproportionately on people with certain chronic illnesses and
allergies/hypersensitivities to active ingredients. It is also a concern for
parents of babies and young children whose growing nervous system makes them
especially vulnerable to the toxic effects of synthetic pesticides. Can these
points be added to the EQI please? The Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services responded:
i.
Was pleased to hear of Pesticide Free Cambridge’s
satisfaction with the progress of the Herbicide Reduction Plan and their
commitment to further collaboration.
ii.
Agreed it was crucial for residents to be informed
about ecological, public health, and disability access to garner ongoing public
support and to encourage a wider shift away from herbicides and insecticides,
and these ambitions were set out in section 5 of the Officer’s report. Intended
to speak to a journalist about initiatives to publicise work the Council had
been able to do.
iii.
Regarding the request to amend the report to
include reference to two current initiatives that build on the success of the
Herbicide Reduction Plan, namely the Pesticide-Free Schools and Pesticide-Free
Cambridge Colleges campaigns, the Council would ensure these initiatives were
appropriately acknowledged and referenced. The report could not be amended to
include the above initiatives as it referred to Council operational details.
iv.
Understood the speaker’s concerns regarding the
disability access and pavement plants and the need to address pesticide
exposure as a public health and disability access issue. An EQIA could be
reviewed at any point, and this would be done after Committee to reference
pesticide exposure and ensure its potential impacts on vulnerable populations
were included in the Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) section of the Report. Question 7 The Council’s support (or lack of it) for
market traders, including the role of the market in providing sustainable food. The Chair had ruled this draft question out of
time due to the high number of other public speakers who had registered. If
question details were finalised a response could be sent after committee. Question 8 The Cultural Strategy’s support (or lack of it)
for individual artists, musicians and performers, and the provision of
facilities essential to enable their cultural activities. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Greater Cambridge Air Quality Strategy 2024 - 2029 Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision Local
Air Quality Management (LAQM) requires Local Authorities to monitor key
pollutants (NO2 & PM10) across their district and report against target levels.
Data shows objective levels had now been achieved across Cambridge. National
legally binding PM2.5 targets had been set under the Environmental Target
Regulations and levels in Cambridge were around the target annual mean. As
objective levels had been achieved within the Air quality Management Area
(AQMA) the Council were required to revoke this;
negating the need for an Air quality Action Plan. Under the Environment Act
2021 an Air Quality Strategy was required if LAQM objective levels were achieved.
The Strategy must outline how air quality would be maintained and improved;
including how it would help achieve national PM2.5 targets. It was agreed at the Environmental & Community Scrutiny Committee,
October 2023 to pursue a joint Air Quality Strategy with South Cambridgeshire
District Council (SCDC) and to work towards World Health Organisation
(WHO) air quality guideline targets. SCDC agreed these decisions at their
equivalent committee in December 2023. It was
widely accepted there was no safe level of air pollution. Greater Cambridge was
a major growth area with large scale development and population increase coming
forward in the next 10-20 years. This Strategy sought to strike a balance in
supporting the productivity, economy, and prosperity of Greater Cambridge;
whilst continuing to deliver improvements in air quality and the positive
health outcomes that improved air quality would deliver for both residents and
visitors to the Greater Cambridge area. The Strategy focused on sources of pollution
that could be influenced locally by all partner organisations. Interim
targets had been set to be delivered over the lifetime of the strategy. Where
appropriate, mechanisms for delivering these improvements working alongside
delivery partners had been identified. These were outlined as an Action Plan
(Appendix B of the Strategy). The
strategy met Council legislative responsibilities under LAQM. Decision of Executive Councillor for
Climate Action and Environment Approved the adoption of the ‘Greater Cambridge Air Quality
Strategy’ as per Appendix A 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 Environmental Quality &
Growth Manager. The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Asked for publicity of actions to improve air quality
to be publicised eg through
Cambridge Matters to engage the public and show progress.
ii.
Data needed to be accessible for residents to
understand why they needed to change their behaviour. The Environmental Quality & Growth Manager said the following in
response to Members’ questions:
i.
It was difficult to convert pollutant levels into
easy to digest comparisons for the public such as numbers of lives saved by
reducing pollutants by X amount. There was little information nationally
available since 2019. Would work on this next year to give tangible outcomes
from the Air Strategy.
ii.
Various sites periodically measured pollutant
levels across the city.
iii.
Air quality had generally improved across the city
over the last twenty years and now met statutory guidelines. Particulate levels
varied day-to-day and during the day. Exposure levels varied between different
types of pollutants. This made it hard to mitigate their effects. For example Officers had worked with schools to suggest
staggering closing times. It was hard to measure the impact as pollutant levels
varied. iv.
New legislation was in place about solid fuel
burning and smoke control areas. Officers needed to quantify what was occurring
and how to address issues eg
when to take enforcement action.
v.
Agreed it was possible to promote work to improve
air quality now national legal standards were met. For example
initiatives such as Ultra-Low Emission Vehicle policies for taxi vehicles in
the city. The Council had limited resources so needed to put these in the best
place to bring about change in residents’ behaviour. Verified annual data reports could be
published in Cambridge Matters (data had to be verified before it could be
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. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Cambridge Market Status and Powers Minutes: Matter for
Decision The
Council recognised the important contribution that the market could make to the
local economy and the character of the City. Markets could deliver economic growth
and regeneration; they offer an opportunity for small businesses to get started
for a relatively modest financial outlay, help increase city centre vitality
and contribute in a number of ways to the local communities they serve. The
recommendations in the officer’s report were relevant to the current day-to day
operation of its markets. The Council aims to create a market trading
environment that compliments the surrounding area and retail offer, was
sensitive to the needs of all users of our city and provided a diversity of
choice for consumers. It sought to encourage and stimulate investment from
local traders and to create a quality and sustainable offer to our residents
and visitors. It was recognised that it was important that
the Council had clarity on the nature of its Market Powers so that there was a
reference point for any action the Council might want to take in respect of
protecting and supporting its current and future Markets. The
Officer’s report summarised the work undertaken by the Markets team and the
advice received from The National Association of British Markets (NABMA) Legal
and Policy expert and makes a series of recommendations on the operation of
modern and successful markets in Cambridge. The
Council’s Markets were currently operated under the provisions of the City of
Cambridge Act 1985 which incorporates section 50 of the Food Act 1984. The
Council was advised that its Markets would benefit from being operated under
the provisions of the City of Cambridge Act,1985 and Part III of the Food Act
1984, as Part III of the Food Act was the current statutory framework for all
modern markets and its provisions were wider than those contained in Part 11,
section 50 of the Food Act 1984 for which the Market currently operated. Use of
these additional Part III provisions would provide the Council with a
comprehensive range of powers, and it was the intention to consult on the
impact of proposed changes. The proposed engagement framework for consultation on the
impact of any proposed changes was detailed in Section 5 of the Officer’s
report. Decision of Executive Councillor for
Climate Action and Environment Agreed to: i.
Operate
Markets in Cambridge using the provisions of the City of Cambridge Act 1985 and
Part III of the Food Act 1984. ii.
Review current
Byelaws, review current regulations and consult on the impact of proposed
changes to terms and conditions and current licensing arrangements. These
documents would then to be consolidated into one single document. iii.
Approve the production
of consultation plan (as set out in Section 5) for the development of a Market
Licensing Policy, a Balance of Trade Policy, and the impact of any proposed
changes to the General Market Terms and Conditions. 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 Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Queried if the city could had more markets,
particularly if requested by new developments. Who would control these, the
City Council or another organisation?
ii.
Queried if existing traders would be consulted
(with others) on introducing a new market, and if so, able to block possible
competition? The Strategic Delivery Manager said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
The aim of the Officer’s report was to ensure the
market had balance of products (not too many or too few).
ii.
The city had an existing market and could create
more under existing legislation. Officers would respond to a request when
contacted by people wishing to set up a market.
iii.
The Council had regulatory powers to deal with
markets in competition with its own that were set up on private land. iv.
A consultation had been drafted and would go ahead
after May 2024.
v.
A report on the market, consultation results,
balance of trade etc would be brought back to committee in the future. 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. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Creativity and Culture for All. Cambridge City Council’s Cultural Strategy (2024-2029) Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision The
2019 Cultural Cities Enquiry Report considered how the Council could radically increase
the ability to use culture to drive inclusive growth. It stated, ‘The value of
culture to our civic life was now indisputable. There was a great opportunity
to release reserves of untapped potential in our cities through investment in
culture. Culture could help our cities to define a shared vision for the
future, to promote innovation and positive change in our businesses and
institutions, to equip communities to deal positively with change, and to
realise more equitable opportunities for all individuals to succeed.’ The development of a strategy to maximise cultural dividends
in Cambridge was a key to realising Cambridge’s cultural potential as it adapts
to a period of rapid growth and change. The
Cultural Strategy 2024 -2029 was a new strategy that sets out the Council’s
role and commitment to work with partners to deliver a cohesive, coordinated
and collaborative approach to managing change as the identity of Cambridge City
and the region adapts. Following approval of the Strategy the documentation would
be redesigned to ensure it met all requirements on accessibility and fitted
with the wider suite of Council strategies. Decision of Executive Councillor for
Communities Approved
and adopted the Cambridge City Council’s Cultural Strategy (2024 – 2029). 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 Culture & Community Manager. The Culture & Community Manager said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
Officers had been communicating and consulting
about the Cultural Strategy with key partners within the city and the region eg Cambridge Arts Network.
ii.
Large events contributed towards community cohesion
in the city. They also attracted people from outside the city. This was an
income stream. Officers would work with other organisations so costs could be
shared to run events that benefitted city residents and visitors from across
the region (so city residents would not subsidise the cost of events that other
people used). Officers had worked with commercial organisations for five years.
iii.
A Culture Infrastructure Strategy (to be drafted) would
run alongside the Cultural Strategy to review the infrastructure in place and
also what was needed in the city over the next ten to twenty years. Officers
were working alongside the Planning Department and South Cambs District Council
on the ‘regional draw’ of events to the city and what cultural events South
Cambs District Council could provide themselves. Officers also worked with the
Arts Council and Combined Authority. iv.
Officers were looking at how to measure the impact
of culture for the economic and cultural benefit of the city. 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. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Public Art Commissioning Strategy and the use of S106 Funding for Public Art Additional documents: Minutes: Councillor Pounds withdrew from the meeting for this
item and did not participate in the discussion or decision making. Matter for
Decision Following
the approval of a Public Art Manifesto in March 2022, a Public Art
Commissioning Programme had now been developed. This
set out a package of future
S106-funded projects in Cambridge, which would help the relevant time-limited
public art developer contributions to be used effectively and on time. It
featured new proposals for public art commissions. The programme also included the public art commission at Nightingale Recreation Ground (Queen Edith’s ward)
to which the Executive Councillor allocated £40,000 of S106 funding in January
2024. An artist was being commissioned to design and deliver bespoke artwork/s
inspired by the recreation ground, its new pavilion and its community garden. As well as developing the
Commissioning Programme, the Council had undertaken a
2023/24 S106 public art grants round in order to be able to take stock of ideas
from local communities for local public art projects and to support the timely
and effective use of time-limited S106 funding. Paragraph 5.2 of the Officer’s
report featured a table that set out how emerging public art projects come
together to form the overall programme, along with
possible timescales for when these projects might be commissioned. Decision of Executive Councillor for
Communities Agreed to: i.
Note the updated S106 funding
availability analysis in Appendix A and the de-allocation of public art S106
funding from a number of a few projects that either stalled or were not taken
forward (see paragraph 3.7 of the Officer’s report). ii.
Allocate a £30,000 S106-funded
public art grant to the Menagerie Theatre Company for its ‘Trials of Democracy’
project, subject to business case sign-off, a public art grant agreement and
project completion or significant progress within 18 months (see Section 4 and
Appendices C and D). iii.
Allocate public art S106 funding
to the following new public art projects, subject to further engagement with
councillors, communities and professional artists and business case sign-off
(see Section 5 and Appendix F of the Officer’s report).
iv.
Delegate authority to the Director of City Services, in consultation with the
Executive Councillor and Opposition Spokes for Communities and the Chair of the
Environment and Community Services Scrutiny Committee to add to the
Commissioning Programme any time-limited opportunities for funding small-scale
(under £30,000) public art projects opportunities may arise before the next
Committee meeting in June 2024 (see paragraph 5.3 of the Officer’s report). v.
Approve the draft Public Art
Commissioning Programme (see Appendix F 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 Strategic Delivery Manager. He clarified that due to a communications
glitch during the application process, Officers had not responded to one
group’s email (Riverside Residents’ Association). Officers would contact the
group to allow them to resubmit their application, so they were not
disadvantaged. The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
What could be done in future to rectify issues, so
they did not occur again?
ii.
How many applications were refused and what could
be done about it?
iii.
Suggested residents engaged with Ward Councillors
to seek help with the application process. Recognised that Officers were tied
by the legal/application process. The Strategic Delivery Manager said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
Referred to Appendix A of the Officers’ report
which set out the process followed and how applications were considered.
ii.
It was
regrettable that not all projects could be approved. Each application had to be
considered against the public art S106 funding criteria. The Urban Growth Project Manager said that,
having overseen every S106 funding round over the last twelve years, he was
satisfied that the assessment of the public art applications received in the
recent public art S106 funding grant round had been fair and consistent. The Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services said the City
Council was looking at how to improve Environmental Improvement Programme and
S106 funding processes. Various Councils across the country were also doing
this. The Committee resolved by 7 votes to 0 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 Wealth Building Strategy Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Officer’s report presented the Council’s Community Wealth Building
strategy for approval, which aims to address poverty and inequality in
Cambridge and help create a more sustainable and inclusive economy. The
Community Wealth Building Strategy represented an evolution of the Council’s
approach to these issues and it would replace the Anti-Poverty Strategy from
April 2024 onwards. Decision of Executive Councillor for
Community Wealth Building and Community Safety Approved the Community
Wealth Building Strategy. 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.
As part
of its Community Wealth Building work, the Council would explore progressive
procurement approaches, which could include increasing opportunities for
different types of businesses to access the Council’s supply chain,
including community led co-operatives
and other non-traditional business models.
ii.
Officers actively involved stakeholders in the development
of the strategy. For example, two interactive stakeholder workshops were held
in November and December 2023 at the Guildhall and the Meadows, which were
attended by nineteen community and voluntary organisations, business bodies and
public sector partner. Attendees were based on partners the City Council knew
were working on relevant areas so could contribute to the community wealth
building discussion.
iii.
The Community Wealth Building Strategy approach
included a focus on building the six capitals identified by the Bennett
Institute for Public Policy at the University
of Cambridge, including natural capital and social capital. Referred to agenda
page 256. Officers took advice on how to quantify and measure these capitals so
they could be reported on in future. Referred to section 3 plus Appendices A
and B in the Officer’s report. It may be possible to set targets to be reported
in future setting out progress made between ‘current’ and ‘past’ positions. 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. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
2023/24 S106 Funding Round (Streets and Open Spaces) Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Council helped to mitigate the impact of housing
development on local facilities and amenities through the use of S106 contributions.
The Officer’s report took stock of the contribution types within the Executive Councillor’s remit and recommended use of generic
informal open space S106 funding for a number of eligible projects. Decision
of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services Agreed to: i.
Allocate generic informal open
spaces S106 funding, subject to business case approval and community use
agreement (as appropriate), to the following project proposals:
ii.
Allocate around £47,600 of generic
informal open spaces S106 funding to eligible projects previously approved for
Environmental Improvement Programme (EIP) funding in 2022/23 and 2023/24 in
place of EIP funds (see paragraph 4.6 and Appendix C of the Officer’s report); iii.
Allocate an additional £5,000 of
generic informal open spaces S106 funding to supplement the funding available
for the St Alban’s Rec Ground biodiversity project (see paragraph 4.6d and
Appendix C of the Officer’s report); iv.
Note that relevant specific
informal open spaces S106 contributions may be used to supplement new and
existing generic S106-funded projects (e.g., for the mature tree-planting
programme and improving open spaces at Romsey and Cherry Hinton Recreation
Grounds and Coldham’s Common BMX track) (see paragraph and 4.7 of the Officer’s
report); v.
Note that some projects allocated
S106 funds in previous generic S106 funding rounds had not been able to proceed
(see paragraph 3.5 of the Officer’s report); vi.
Approve a new process whereby any
generic S106 funds in the informal open spaces, play provision and public realm
categories that were within two years of the date by which they need to be used
or contractually committed may be de-allocated from a project which was
unlikely to deliver on time, so that they could be re-allocated to another
relevant project (related to where the S106 contributions were from) which
could make timely use of this funding (see Section 5 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 Technical & Specialist Services Manager. The Technical & Specialist Services Manager said the following in
response to Members’ questions:
i.
A
report of S106 funding for play facilities would be compiled for a future
Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee meeting (likely June 2024). The
report for agenda item 12 in the March Committee also referred to the Outdoor Play Spaces
Investment Strategy. ii.
The
Planning Authority secured S106 funding contributions from developers to help
mitigate the impact of new developments; with City Council Officers providing
professional advice on needs and appropriate uses. Adopted policies and
strategies provided helpful tools to guide the planning process in securing
S106 contributions for an area.
iii.
Officers were working
hard to make sure that all S106 contributions were used effectively and on time. The Urban Growth Project Manager said: i.
The approach to this funding round reflected
decisions made following recommendations in a report to this Committee in
October 2021. ii.
The Outdoor Play Spaces Investment Strategy
would help the City Council to identify suitable play area improvement projects
that would help to make use of remaining S106 contributions for play provision
for children and teenagers. 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. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Outdoor Play Spaces Investment Strategy Additional documents: Minutes: Matter for
Decision The
Outdoor Play Place Spaces Investment Strategy (Strategy) detailed in Appendix B
of the Officer’s report provided a framework to steer future outdoor play provision
and associated investment decisions. The Strategy was supported by a Business
Intelligence (BI) Platform1 which would enable the Council to use real time
data to respond to changes in the play portfolio in an informed, timely and
business efficient and effective manner. The
Strategy had been developed using an updated audit of outdoor play provision
including an assessment of the play portfolio’s current quantity, quality, and
accessibility against current and future population growth. The
results of this assessment had been used to devise a ‘tiered’ system to
identify where deficiencies and over provision exist in terms of quantity,
quality and accessibility and explored how these factors could be evaluated and
overcome. The
Strategy updated and reviewed the previous work dated 2016-2021 and responds to
population growth but also the delivery of new play provision in the City as
well as proposing a new data driven approach. The
strategic approach informs how the Council could think differently about the
future of the service delivery and to investigate ways to make smarter
decisions, the project and its outputs had been led using the Power BI
Platform. Decision of Executive Councillor for
Open Spaces and City Services i.
Approved and
adopted the proposed Outdoor Play Spaces Investment Strategy at set out in
appendix B of the Officer’s report; and
ii.
Instructed Officers to adopt and
implement the key conclusions and recommendations from the report as follows: a.
To licence the software platform to enable
the council to maintain real-time data for the play space provision strategy
and drive business efficiency within the portfolio, b.
Implement the proposed tiered structure
for the play space provision, incorporating different tiers to streamline
processes, enhance efficiency, and provide a more organised approach to the
delivery of play spaces across the City. c.
To review financial focus, direct
attention and resources towards sites that currently had limited equipment,
aiming to diversify and enhance recreational offerings. d.
Explore the possibility of
transitioning the play space surfaces in areas covered only by grass to
versatile multifunctional, year-round surfaces that could accommodate various
activities particularly in lower order tier sites. e.
Use the tiered data to make future
recommendations on the allocation of funds for both local and strategic outdoor
play provision, such as S106, CIL, bids to the Council’s capital plan, and
external investment opportunities.
iii.
Instruct Officers to use the data and
information to enhance the Councils webpages in relation to outdoor play
spaces; to include maps with lists of equipment available at each site and
accompanying photographs. 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 said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
Figures on the play space webpage dashboard gave
estimates of the numbers of people using play areas. Data would be regularly
updated to keep it as accurate as possible.
ii.
The EQiA in the Officers’
report set out details about accessible play spaces. The public facing online
tool would allow people to see the types of play spaces available, facilities
and location.
iii.
Officers would visit sites to take pictures of
facilities to upload onto the website so people could see what facilities were
available ie what was appropriate for their child’s
needs. The intention was to have a variety of facilities provided across
different sites.
iv.
The Outdoor Play Spaces Investment Strategy was a
tool to target investment, catalogue facilities, identify facilities that need
repair (quicker than possible in the past) and spare parts available for
repairs.
v.
The data demonstrated the value of tier 4 play
areas so they had merit to be retained. The Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services said:
i.
The Council wanted a diversity of play space sites
across the city.
ii.
There was no proposal to close sites. If some areas
were not well used, the Council would engage with residents and Ward
Councillors to see if equipment could be used more effectively somewhere else
in the city to get best value out of assets available.
iii.
Tier classification for a given play space related
to objective characteristics, with size being particularly important. 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. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Herbicide Reduction Plan Minutes: Matter for
Decision The
Council’s declaration of a Biodiversity Emergency (18th July 2019) included a commitment
to reducing and removing the need to use herbicides on highway verges, roads,
and pavements, and to find viable and effective alternatives. This was
reflected in the development and application of the Herbicide Reduction Plan
(HRP). The
Council’s passing of a Herbicide Motion (ref. 21/32/CNLc (22nd July 2021)), included a commitment to undertake
a range of tasks and actions to reduce the reliance on herbicides, as a means
of managing unwanted vegetation on public property asset within the city. On the 27th January 2022, the Executive
Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food & Community Wellbeing, after
scrutiny, approved a Herbicide Reduction Plan, which included Newnham and
Arbury as the two herbicide free wards, and the introduction of up to 12
herbicide free streets outside of these wards. A further decision on the 23rd March 2023 extended the trial areas to include West
Chesterton and Trumpington. The
Officer’s report updated on the work completed on the HRP, including an
evaluation of the four herbicide free wards and the herbicide free street
scheme; and makes recommendations to discontinue the use of herbicides1 in the
city’s public realm. The
report considered the recent decision by the County Council to review its
Highway Operational Standards for Weeds and where this presents an opportunity
for the City Council to champion its ambitions to be herbicide free, and for
the City Council to contribute during the consultation period for the
formulation of the new policy that would include non-use of herbicides and how
this would be practically and financially implemented. The
Trial had allowed the City Council to consider a range of alternatives and the
use of specialist street cleansing mechanical equipment was deemed to be the
most effective and sustainable weed control method available which removes the
need to use herbicides on highway verges, roads, and pavements. The HRP and its Trial were now recommended for closure, and
that a new methodology was approved wherein herbicide use was significantly
reduced and limited to scenarios where viable alternatives were exhausted or no
other alternative was available. Decision of Executive Councillor for
Open Spaces and City Services
i.
Approved the closure of the
Herbicide Free Plan and its Trials.
ii.
Approved the new weed control
methodology, including the discontinuation of herbicide use in routine
operations, for the City Council as outlined in this report.
iii.
Approved the continuation and
further development of the ‘Happy Bee Street Scheme’.
iv.
Noted the decision of the County
Council on their use of herbicides and to assist them with developing a new
approach for the city.
v.
Supported the development of a
collaborative communication plan as detailed in
Section 5 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 Strategic Delivery Manager. The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
‘No Mow May’ led to areas looking untidy and
anti-social behaviour such as fly tipping. Residents asked for equipment to
tidy up streets (which some residents viewed as looking untidy due to a build-up of leaf mould and
plants) after the Herbicide Reduction Plan trial started.
ii.
There were path and highway issues associated with
the Herbicide Reduction Plan.
iii.
Cars parked on the highway prevented streets being
deep cleaned. Queried how to engage with residents and commuters who parked in
roads to request they move vehicles when deep cleans were timetabled to occur.
iv.
Referenced public question 6 from earlier in the
agenda: It was important to inform residents why the Herbicide Free Trial was
happening. The Strategic Delivery Manager said the following in response to
Members’ questions:
i.
The Herbicide Reduction Plan did not cause problems
per se. When the carriageway were in poor repair then
leaf mould could grow through the cracks etc. Alternatives to herbicides such
as a heat gun were available, the latter was time/resource inefficient.
ii.
If the Officer’s report was approved, the weed
control equipment listed could be ordered.
iii.
When deep cleans were timetabled to occur in
streets Officers would appreciate if Ward Councillors could engage with
residents etc who parked in streets to request vehicles were moved. Areas with
high weed growth would be targeted instead of a general deep clean around the
city.
iv.
The City Council would work with partner organisations
to close roads when deep cleans were timetabled. The intention was for
multi-agency action at the same time eg County
Council repairing potholes whilst the City Council cleaned streets. If cars
blocked the road, it may be possible to come back another time or use
alternative tools.
v.
Herbicides were only used in exceptional
circumstances when weeds (eg Japanese Knotweed) did
not respond to other methods.
vi.
The City Council and Pesticide Free Cambridge were
working on a communication strategy to inform residents why the Herbicide
Reduction Plan was being trialled. A herbicide free
scheme should look clean and tidy. The scheme was not implemented correctly if
verges and the highway looked untidy. 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. |
PDF 276 KB