Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > 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 for lateness were received from Councillors Divkovic and Payne who would arrive after the start of the meeting (they arrived by the start of the public questions item). |
|
Declarations of Interest Minutes: No declarations of interest were made. |
|
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 27 June 2024 were approved as a
correct record and signed by the Chair. Councillor Ashton referred to 24/31/EnC Record of Urgent Decision taken by
the Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment regarding the
Material Recycling Facility (MRF) Contract 2024. He asked for details as he
understood the MRF was going to Northern Ireland although the contract was
controlled by South Cambs District Council. The Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment responded:
i.
The MRF contract was due for renewal.
ii.
The City Council worked in partnership with ReCap
and Cambridgeshire Authorities to look at a new provider for all partners. The
tender received for all partners was three times the current cost so parties
were advised to break into smaller groups to get a cheaper tender.
iii.
The City Council did have a say in where recycling
materials went, but the County Council ran the procurement process as the waste
disposal authority and did not choose the Waterbeach site.
iv.
Officers looked at a new location for the MRF and
chose the Northern Ireland site.
v.
Waterbeach merely sorted waste then sent it offsite
for recycling (it did not recycle on-site), so moving the MRF to Northern
Ireland was not such a large change.
vi.
The City Council and South Cambs District Council
would continue using Waterbeach for six months then move to the Northern
Ireland facility. The new contract would last five years. Councillor Pounds said she had received a recent briefing from Officers
covering amongst other topics: 1.
The Happy Bee scheme. 2.
A report on the impact of the Herbicide Free Policy
impact, specifically progress of the use of the new machines for clearing
pavements and kerbsides instead of using herbicides. Councillor Pounds offered to circulate details to Committee Members. |
|
Minutes: A list of public questions was publishing on the meeting page available
via: Agenda for Environment and Community
Scrutiny Committee on Thursday, 26th September, 2024, 6.00 pm - Cambridge
Council Responses to public questions and supplementary questions were included
below: Question 1: Barney McCullagh The planned relocation of the Grafton Centre’s Ping Pong Parlour to the
Malle’s unit 55 creates more problems than it solves. The new premises are
scarcely big enough to accommodate two tables. The mammoth interior square
pillars that are characteristic of the Centre, puts internal space at a
premium. By contrast, the current premises ae big enough to accommodate ten
tables. The parlour has in this sense become a victim of its own success. With
tables freely available, the popularity of the parlour has grown exponentially,
so much so that the facility has long since become a 'de facto' community
centre where English, Chinese, and Central Europeans (to name but a few)
congregate to play, talk, and socialise. Whilst the beneficiaries of this
initiative are grateful to Table Tennis England and the Grafton Centre for
their original investment, there is now much uncertainty surrounding the
venue's new 2-table operation. Will a booking system be introduced? Will
would-be players form queues outside with no guarantee of gaining access to a
table? Clearly a 2-table venue will be
unworkable in the long run. This is where the Council could make a difference.
Could it not dedicate a premises in central Cambridge to the provision of free
Table Tennis for all? Ideally the site should be inalienable and devoted in
perpetuity to the practice of the sport both by the townspeople and those
living in South Cambridgeshire. In essence we fear that the relocation of the Table Tennis parlour will
be the thin end of a wedge that will lead to the extinction of our burgeoning
‘community’. There is a further issue to be considered. I am one of many
Parkinson's sufferers throughout the world whose symptoms have been alleviated
by playing Table Tennis. So strong is the link between the sport and
Parkinson's that there have already been four Ping Pong Parkinson's World
Championships with a fifth scheduled to take place in France this October.
Thus, investing in a 10-table centre will show that Britain, and Cambridge in
particular, are active in, and committed to, a movement towards health through
sport and self-help. Indeed the disencumbering of the NHS from part of its
responsibility for the treatment of Parkinson's coupled with the individual
sufferer's assumption of responsibility for his or her own physical health can
only be a good thing. This empowerment of the individual only requires a
one-off initial investment to be effective. We therefore urge Cambridge City
Council, either in tandem with Ping Pong England or on its own initiative, to
acquire, equip and maintain a 10- or 12- table Ping Pong facility for the use
of those living in Cambridge and its environs. The Executive Councillor for Community Safety, Homelessness and
Wellbeing responded: i.
The
Agreement for provision of the "Ping Parlour" was a direct
arrangement between Table Tennis England and the Grafton Centre management, not
the City Council. The City Council just helped to facilitate sessions in there. ii.
Believed
the ping pong parlour would be moved to another unit in the Grafton Centre by
Decathlon but was unsure of dates and the size of the new facility. iii.
The
City Council did not own either facility or fund the centre, so there was not a
lot the Council could do other than work with Table Tennis England to look for
other sites. Officers intended to meet Table Tennis England one week after
committee. iv.
Offered
to talk to the questioner after committee to address any issues. Question 2a: Minjie Ding I am resident in Cambridge. Night parties/Night
noise become a big issue in Cambridge. However, Council’s current organisation cannot deal with the noise complaint
efficiently or sufficiently. Following are the news
about night noise. 1.1 BBC news on 21 Sept, police called to ‘house
party goes wrong’ at Cambridge, The ambulance was
called, which caused extra work to NHS. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8dj9rn2m93o https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambs-party-leaves-local-residents-24517511 1.2 the Guardian news in 2021 Noisy neighbours spark 67% rise in police complaints, the
complaints tripled in Cambridgeshire. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/19/noisy-neighbours-spark-67-rise-in-police-complaints Council doesn’t have night team to deal with noise
nuisance immediately, which made vulnerable people suffering from mental
disorder, and the further useless complaint procedure and officer’s inaction,
cause extra burden to NHS. Although victims can take legal proceeding against
noise nuisance, Council doesn’t help victims to get the noise makers’ name,
which made the legal proceeding impossible. Any plan for council to solve this
problem? Other council’s solution: I did research on 294 local authorities. (36
metropolitan districts, 32 London boroughs, 62 Unitary authorities and 164
district council in England.) There are 70 councils have the night team to deal
with night noise nuisance immediately. I don’t know why Cambridge
City council cannot deal with it? Funding cut is not
an excuse. Let’s take Bristol as an
Example. Bristol university, council, police were worked together to manage the
night parties. Police will attend the night party and fine them. This will lead
the party animals to have parties in the club and pub. They will spend money
there, which will revitalise the economy. At the same
time, police can have some income instead of asking the parliament to give them
more funding. Working class, vulnerable people can have a good sleep, in which
the working class can work more harder, earn more money, pay more tax to the
government. The vulnerable people don’t need to see doctor
for anxiety, heart disease etc. As night party can trigger lots of mental
disorder. having a night team, leading people to club, can release burden for
NHS. The Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment responded: i.
Referred to details in earlier
communication with the public speaker. ii.
There was not an out of hours
Environmental Health Officer employed by the City Council, the vacancy could
not be filled. As an alternative, a noise app and recording equipment could be
loaned to residents to record noise and use the recording in court to prove
issues. iii.
The City Council would take noise
enforcement action where applicable; some issues were the responsibility of the
Police. Supplementary question: Minjie Ding sought clarification on actions to take in a neighbour dispute. The Executive Councillor responded: i.
Was sorry to hear Minjie Ding found the Anti-Social Behaviour Team was
unable to help her ii.
The noise app was used to
undertake similar enforcement action (provide evidence) as an on-call officer
could. Question 2b Minjie Ding Cambridge City Council plan to merge with
Peterborough council and also another partnership, I
would like to know the progress of that. And for the new organisation,
is there any plan to solve the bureaucracy (local authorities
inaction)? If we don’t address this
problem, no matter how much tax the working class will pay, we’ll never solve
the financial mismanagement problem. The Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment responded: i.
The City Council had no plans to
merge with Peterborough City Council. ii.
However, Cambridge City Council had
just completed initial public engagement about the future of local government
for Cambridge. More information about the ‘Future of Local Government for
Cambridge’ was available on the Council’s website. iii.
The results of the engagement
would be published in due course. iv.
Cambridge City Council,
Peterborough City Council and other Cambridgeshire Councils were part of the
Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority to improve the region’s
economy and opportunities for local people. v.
Cambridge City Council had little
tax collecting powers, these were set by national government. Supplementary question: Minjie Ding sought clarification on why council tax was rising when the City
Council was undertaking the same amount of work. The Executive Councillor responded: i.
Council tax was increasing but the
City Council was doing more work. ii.
Offered to talk to Minjie Ding after committee as her Ward Councillor to
address any issues. |
|
Climate Change Strategy and Carbon Management Plan Annual Report 2023/24 Minutes: Matter for
Decision The Officer’s report provided an update on
progress on the 2023/24 actions of the Council’s Climate Change Strategy 2021-26.
As part of this, the report included an update on progress in implementing
projects to reduce direct carbon emissions from corporate buildings, fleet
vehicles and business travel as detailed in the Council’s Carbon Management
Plan 2021-26. The report also provided an update on the
Council’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2023/24 and a new Climate Risk and
Vulnerability Assessment (CR&VA) and Adaptation Plan, which prioritised the
climate change risks for the Council and the city, plus details on actions the
Council was taking to adapt and improve resilience. Decision of Executive
Councillor for Climate Action and Environment i.
Noted
the progress achieved in implementing the actions in the Climate Change
Strategy and Carbon Management Plan (Appendix B of the Officer’s report). ii.
Approved
the updated Climate Change Strategy Action Plan presented in Appendix A. iii.
Noted
the risks identified and actions being taken in the Climate Risk and
Vulnerability Assessment (CR&VA) and Adaptation Plan. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected Not applicable. Scrutiny Considerations The Committee received a report from the Assistant Chief Executive. The Assistant Chief Executive said the following in response to Members’
questions: i.
Undertook
to provide briefing details to Committee Members after the meeting on: a.
Civic
Quarter project and biodiversity net gain. b.
Community
Action Days. c.
Green
investments from General Fund. d.
Support
for businesses to tackle climate change. e.
Procurement
and Climate Change. f.
Carbon
Neutral Cambridge’s commentary on the Climate Change Strategy annual update
report. ii.
Targets
referenced in the Officer’s report were direct emissions from the City Council.
The hope was to get the city to net zero, but this was an aspiration. iii.
The
Council was taking a wide range of direct actions, set out in the Climate
Change Strategy Action Plan. For example seeking to reduce emissions from its
housing and leisure sites. Officers were looking at how to take more actions in
future. iv.
The
Guildhall was used for a number of purposes by different organisations. There
were currently no plans to host a Decarbonisation Officer in the Guildhall.
Other officers could be signposted to people making enquiries. v.
The
City Council was putting in electric vehicle charging points in carparks on
land it owned. The Environmental Quality & Growth Manager was liaising with
the County Council to encourage people to put charging points on home owners’
properties in residential areas. The Environmental Quality & Growth Manager
said: a.
A
pilot project was run with Cambridgeshire County Council to install forty-two
charging points in residential areas. A larger project was expected to be
rolled out in the next twelve months, led by the Cambridgeshire and
Peterborough Combined Authority, to install more charging points around the
county (not just in the city). b.
The
City Council had installed rapid chargers around Cambridge for taxi and public
use. c.
The
on-street charging tariff could be expensive. It was cheaper to use private
charging points. The tariff for public ones included maintenance costs. The
contract for residential on-street chargers was managed by the County Council.
Rates across the city were competitive with national ones. vi.
A
social value framework was currently being developed. This looked at how City
Council money could be used to nudge contractors to take more action. The
Director of Communities was writing a new strategy to take over from the
existing one in eighteen months. vii.
Referenced objective 4 in the report. The City
Council convened the City Leaders
Climate Change Group to share good practice plus encourage residents and
businesses to reduce emissions. viii.
It
was difficult to engage with some residents if they did not want to respond. ix.
The
City Council was working with partners to decarbonise the food supply chain,
working with partners such as Cambridge Sustainable Food. The Director of Communities said officers were
looking at how to use community venues as food hubs. Actions could be reported
back in future such as work with Coe Farm. x.
The
Waterbeach Renewable Energy Network (WREN) solar project was scheduled to start
construction in 2025. The Executive Councillor for Climate Action and
Environment said the Council had taken delivery of a fourth electric vehicle
for waste collection. More could not be procured until WREN came online. Some
waste oil powered vehicles were used mean time. 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. Comment by Committee The Committee thanked Assistant Chief
Executive Andrew Limb for his exceptional work in supporting Cambridge City
Council’s climate change strategy. |
|
Consultation on the Expansion of the Smoke Control Area (SCA) Additional documents:
Minutes: Matter for
Decision Solid Fuel Burning was the largest single source
of PM2.5 emissions in Cambridge. It accounted for 40% of emissions in
Cambridge. Legislation to control emissions from solid fuel
burning was the Clean Air Act 1993 and the use of Smoke Control Areas (SCA); a
designated area where the emission of smoke was not permitted. You could burn
inside a SCA, but either smokeless fuel or a DEFRA approved appliance must be
used. Three SCAs were introduced in Cambridge in the 1960s and 1970s. Most
residential properties were outside existing SCAs. Cambridge City Council commissioned an
independent report to assess the effects of amending the SCA in Cambridge to
cover the whole of the city. The report considered both the inclusion and
exclusion of permanent moored vessels in terms of changes in pollution
emissions, health & socio-economic impacts. The report concluded that any changes to widen
the scope of the SCA would provide a net benefit to society from health
improvements due to reduced air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, with
these benefits outweighing the combined costs. Costs included cost to home and
vessel owners of switching fuel or upgrading stoves;
and cost to council for implementation and enforcement. The impact on individuals was considered as part
of the socio-economic study. Very few residents were solely dependent on solid
fuel for heating and hot water, with changes impacting those that used wood
burning stoves for pleasure or to subsidise other
forms of central heating. However, this was not the case for moored vessel
owners who were more dependent on solid fuel. Evidence suggested this group may
have lower incomes and be more vulnerable. The Officer’s report recommended the expansion
of the SCA to cover the whole city including moored vessels,
and recommended further engagement with vessel owners given the
increased potential vulnerability of this group. Should changes to the SCA be
implemented, it should be accompanied by a robust awareness raising campaign. Decision of Executive
Councillor for Climate Action and Environment Approved the consultation to the public on expanding the SCA
to cover the whole of the district including to extend the scope of the SCA to
include permanent moored vessels. Reason for the Decision As set out in the Officer’s report. Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected 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.
Referred to the 2023 report regarding how enforcement
action could be undertaken. The intention would be to investigate complaints
from members of the public, issue warnings if required, then act if people did
not desist from burning inappropriate fuels etc. There had been no prosecutions
under the SCAs in twenty-seven years. ii.
Residents in some wards complained when others burnt
solid fuel as they were concerned about harm from smoke. The Environmental Quality & Growth Manager said the following in
response to Members’ questions: i.
The Officer’s report recommended the expansion of the
SCA to cover the whole city including moored vessels, and
recommended further engagement/consultation with vessel owners given the
increased potential vulnerability of this group. ii.
People could still burn approved fuels or any fuel in
an approved appliance. iii.
Retailers
could only supply smokeless fuels. ‘Approved’ stoves were available and more
expensive than ‘standard’ stoves. The report set out options the City Council
could implement to avoid penalising boat owners. The Air Quality Consultant said the difference
between ‘standard’ and ‘approved’ stoves was hard to quantify. Possibly a
reduction in up to 70% of some particulates. Undertook to liaise with
Councillor Glasberg after committee. iv.
There
would always be some harm from burning combustible fuels, so reducing emissions
would lead to some benefits. The Scientific Officer reiterated: i.
Officers
had plans to engage with residents and raise awareness of issues if SCA were
expanded. ii.
People
could use appropriate fuel/stoves. iii.
There
was a need to improve fuel issues such as traffic emissions to improve air
quality. 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. |