A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register

Decisions

Decisions published

14/10/2021 - ***ROD Creating a Vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc (Spatial Framework) Consultation Response ref: 5249    Recommendations Approved

The recommendation relating to this item was as follows:

1. a) To agree a joint response with South Cambridgeshire District Council to the Government’s Creating a Vision Oxford-Cambridge Arc Consultation


Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport

Decision published: 14/10/2021

Effective from: 14/10/2021

Decision:

Matter for Decision:

This decision relates to specific delegations to the Executive Member for Planning Policy & Transport endorsed by Planning & Transport Scrutiny Committee on 28th September 2021. 

 

The recommendation relating to this item was as follows:

 

1.  To agree a joint response with South Cambridgeshire District Council to the Government’s Creating a Vision Oxford-Cambridge Arc Consultation as set out in Appendix 1.

 

  The purpose of this decision is to approve the final response to the Government’s Creating a Vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc (Spatial Framework) Consultation

 

  A copy of the report considered by the Planning and Transport Committee on 28th September and all associated documents can be viewed at the link below:

 

Agenda for Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday, 28th September, 2021, 5.30 pm - Cambridge Council

 

The response has now also been considered by South Cambridgeshire Cabinet, and the response attached is proposed to be joint.

 

This decision seeks to finalise the response for submission to government. The response considered by the scrutiny committee and no amendments or refinements were made. However there were a number of questions originally omitted from the report which are now included and detailed below;

 

·  Homes in your area (Section 5.3 under Placemaking).

 

·  Question: Ensuring the right types of housing are delivered in the right locations to meet the needs of both renters and buyers. For example, family houses, first-time buyers, specialist housing, student accommodation and opportunities for people to build their own homes. [Not important/ Less important/ Neutral/ Important/ Very Important] 4. Increasing the amount and availability of affordable homes within the Arc

 

·  Answer: Very Important

 

·  Question 8 in the Sustainability Appraisal

 

·  Question 1: To what extent do you agree with the key strategic issues and opportunities in the proposed scope for the Sustainability Appraisal of the Spatial Framework?

·  Answer: Strongly agree

 

·  Question 2: Are there any other strategic issues and/or opportunities that need to be considered in the appraisal?

 

·  Answer: Not enough detail at this stage to provide comment we would urge the Vision to align and consider all issues identified in out own SA which is detailed here. Greater Cambridge Local Plan: First Proposals (greatercambridgeplanning.org)

 

 

·  3. Are you aware of any additional strategic data that we should take into account as part of the sustainability appraisal?

 

·  Answer: Not enough detail at this stage to provide comment we would urge the Vision to align and consider all issues identified in out own SA which is detailed here. Greater Cambridge Local Plan: First Proposals (greatercambridgeplanning.org)

 

 

·  Question 4: Are you aware of any additional plans or programmes you think will be important to consider within the sustainability appraisal?

 

·  Answer: Not enough detail at this stage to provide comment we would urge the Vision to align and consider all issues identified in out own SA which is detailed here. Greater Cambridge Local Plan: First Proposals (greatercambridgeplanning.org)

 

 

·  Question 5: To what extent do you agree with our approach to the Sustainability Appraisal?

 

·  Answer: Neutral

 

The response has also been considered by South Cambridgeshire Cabinet, and the response attached is proposed to be joint.

 

Why the decision had to be made (and any alternative options):

The consultation raises important issues that the council wishes to respond to. The decision seeks to formalise the response, following debate at the Planning & Transport Scrutiny committee.

The Executive Councillor’s decision(s):

To approve the proposed responses to additional questions for the Creating a Vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc (Spatial Framework) Consultation, as set out in the documents appended to this decision which can be viewed at the following link:

Agenda for Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday, 28th September 2021, 5.30 pm - Cambridge Council

Reasons for the decision:

Outlined in the report why the decision had been made

mgappmh01/ecCatDisplay.aspx?sch=doc&cat=13489&$LO$=1

Scrutiny consideration:

The Chair and Spokesperson of Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised.

Report:

Member Consultation Paper.

mgappmh-01/ecCatDisplay.aspx?sch=doc&cat=13489&$LO$=1

Conflicts of interest:

None known.

Comments:

No adverse comments were made.

 

Lead officer: Stephen Kelly, Claire Tunnicliffe


31/03/2021 - ***ROD:Cambridge Re-signalling Project C3R Scheme Consultation Response ref: 5248    Recommendations Approved

To agree the consultation response is issued to Network Rail’s public consultation on the ‘C3R’ scheme.
The Cambridge Re-signalling, Re-lock and Re-Control project (C3R for short) is a proposal to renew the signalling systems in and around the Cambridge area and deliver a modern signalling system to improve efficiency and reliability.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport

Decision published: 14/10/2021

Effective from: 31/03/2021

Decision:

Matter for Decision:

The purpose of this decision is to ensure that a timely consultation response is issued to Network Rail’s public consultation on the ‘C3R’ scheme.  This has been prepared on behalf of the Greater Cambridge Planning Service (Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council) and is aligned with the Cambridgeshire County Council and East Cambridgeshire District Council and Greater Cambridge Planning Service (Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council) response.

 

The Cambridge Re-signalling, Re-lock and Re-Control project (C3R for short) is a proposal to renew the signalling systems in and around the Cambridge area and deliver a modern signalling system to improve efficiency and reliability.

 

The consultation opens on 1st March 2021 and closes on 11th April 2021: Home - C3R Consultation

 

Why the decision had to be made (and any alternative options):

The consultation response sets out the requirement for Network Rail to undertake formal pre-application discussions with the Councils, and provides comments from the County Council.

 

The Executive Councillor’s decision(s):

To approve the proposed response to the public consultation, as set out in the documents appended to this decision.

Reasons for the decision:

See consultation response letter

 Document ROD:Cambridge Re-signalling Project C3R Scheme Consultation Response - Cambridge Council

Scrutiny consideration:

The Chair and Spokesperson of Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised.

Report:

Home - C3R Consultation

Conflicts of interest:

None known.

Comments:

No adverse comments were made.

 

Lead officer: Julian Sykes


01/07/2021 - Logan's Meadow Local Nature Reserve Designation Extension ref: 5244    Recommendations Approved

Approval to designate additional land to extend Logan's meadow Local Nature Reserve (LNR)

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing

Decision published: 11/10/2021

Effective from: 01/07/2021

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The City Council has 12 Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) and manages them for wildlife and people. LNRs are a statutory designation local authority can declare in association with Natural England.

 

Officers have been working with the Friends of Logan’s Meadow LNR on a proposal to extend the site’s existing LNR designation onto former sports pitches and an area of adopted land. See appendix A of the officers report  for a location and site plan of proposed LNR extension. Red line demarks the existing LNR designation, green line the proposed extension.

 

A public consultation on the LNR extension and proposed creation of new habitats was widely publicised between 12th October and the 20th November 2020 and received 460 responses, with an overall support for the proposal.

 

Officers sought authority to formally consult with Natural England on the proposed LNR extension, prior to public advertisement and declaration.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing

Approved the proposed LNR extension to Logan’s Meadow LNR and gave authority for officers to formally consult with Natural England and secure its declaration.

 

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 Environment Service.

 

The Biodiversity Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

  i.  Play areas and other amenities would be kept. Officers were only asking to extend the Local Nature Reserve Designation over grassland.

  ii.  The aim was to present detailed plans in future on how to engage communities in plans. A good consultation response was received in lockdown.

  iii.  The objective was to present detailed plans in future as a response to the first round.

 

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.

Lead officer: Guy Belcher


01/07/2021 - Biodiversity Strategy ref: 5243    Recommendations Approved

The decision is to approve the draft Biodiversity Strategy for stakeholder and public consultation. This strategy will update the current Nature Conservation Strategy (2006-2026) in response to the declared Biodiversity Emergency.

 

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing

Decision published: 11/10/2021

Effective from: 01/07/2021

Decision:

Matter for Decision

In 2019 the City Council declared a biodiversity 1 emergency in recognition of the pressures facing our natural world, both locally and internationally. The Council pledged to review its 2006 Nature Conservation Strategy to meet current legislation, policy, initiatives, and challenges.

 

The Officer’s report was accompanied by a draft Biodiversity Strategy for Council services for the period, 2021 to 2030. The Strategy sets out a series of objectives to guide work and groups actions under three themes:

·  ‘Biodiversity Mainstreaming’.

·  ‘The Core’.

·  ‘Nature in your Neighborhood’.

 

Officers requested Committee approval to consult on the draft strategy between July and September 2021, with a view to adopting a further revision of the Strategy after scrutiny in the autumn committee cycle.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing

Approved the draft Biodiversity Strategy for public consultation.

 

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 Environmental Services.

 

The Biodiversity Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

  i.  The biodiversity checklist was available for all services and departments to take them through project steps.

  ii.  Officers were working with Pesticide Action Network to reduce or eliminate the use of herbicides.

  iii.  Work was undertaken with schools and Cambridge University to educate and engage younger people. Directly eg building ponds or indirectly by trying to support other groups to engage schools.

  iv.  The 2006 Nature Conservation Strategy had 80 projects. It had achieved its objectives. It was recognised the strategy did not have measurable management plans, the intention was to address this in the new strategy and to review management plans with communities.

  v.  Officers now had a baseline to review the status/condition of land in future and percentage gain/loss in biodiversity. Some common land areas had been damaged through historic action so would take time to achieve a ‘good’ status. The intention was to increase biodiversity by ten percent.

  vi.  The new strategy action plan would have SMART objectives and proposed to demonstrate change against a baseline.

 vii.  The list of strategy stakeholders was not exhaustive, more could be added such as resident associations nominated by councillors.

 

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.

 

Lead officer: Guy Belcher


25/03/2021 - Storey's Field Centre Future Management Arrangements ref: 5242    Recommendations Approved

Decision to agree any potential changes to the current management arrangements following discussions with the Storey's Field Centre Trust.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Communities

Decision published: 11/10/2021

Effective from: 25/03/2021

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Storey’s Field Centre, on the Eddington Development in the North West of the City, opened to the public in February 2018 and has been managed under a contract for services with the Storey’s Field Centre Trust (SFCT) by the City Council since July 2016 when the Centre manager was appointed.

 

The initial contract was for a 5-year period which comes to an end on 30 June 2021. The SFCT has recommended an 18-month extension to the existing contract whilst it considers recommendations made during a recent review of the Centre and its operations.

 

The City Council considered this option and recommended approval of this extension to ensure continuity for the Centre and staff during this period whilst changes are considered. It is the officers’ view that an 18-month extension is an appropriate length of time for the Trust to make any necessary decisions.

 

The previous contract was approved by Committee in 2015 and any further decisions after the 5-year period of the contract (which expires on 30 June 2021) required approval by the Executive Councillor.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

  i.  Approved the extension to the existing contract for services for the Storey’s Field Centre for a further 18 months from 1st July 2021 – 31 December 2022.

  ii.  Delegated any further decisions in respect of the Council’s commitments to the implementation of the contract until 31 December 2022 to the Director of Communities.

 

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 Neighbourhood Community Development Manager.

 

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.

Lead officer: Sally Roden


25/03/2021 - Cambridge Corn Exchange Heating System ref: 5241    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Communities

Decision published: 11/10/2021

Effective from: 25/03/2021

Decision:

Matter for Decision

This was a report on the heating system replacement for Cambridge Corn Exchange. It summarised why an interim gas-based solution was necessary.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

The Executive Councillor noted the report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Culture and Community Manager.

 

Opposition Councillors made the following comments in response to the report:

  i.  Expressed concern that a gas fired heating system was installed as an emergency measure.

  ii.  There was no time to look at other options eg heat source pump) that had a longer lifespan. The gas system would need to be replaced after 9 years.

  iii.  Looked forward to cross-party action to address the issue in future.

  iv.  Welcomed the opportunity to be briefed by the engineer.

 

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

  i.  It was very complicated to get heat pump boilers installed.

  ii.  Extensive work would have to be undertaken before another type of heating system could be installed.

 

The Executive Councillor said that officers had looked at various heating system options.

 

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.

 

Lead officer: Paul Sumpter


25/03/2021 - Climate Change Strategy and Carbon Management Plan 2021-2026 ref: 5240    Recommendations Approved

To approve a revised and updated Climate Change Strategy and Carbon Management Plan for the period from April 2021 to March 2026.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre

Decision published: 11/10/2021

Effective from: 25/03/2021

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report presented a revised Climate Change Strategy covering the period from 2021-2026 for approval, following public consultation in autumn 2020. The revised strategy set out the Council’s approach to: reducing its own carbon emissions; supporting residents, businesses and organisations in Cambridge to reduce their emissions; and helping the city adapt to the predicted changes in climate. The revised strategy builds on what the Council has achieved to date, but sets out new ambitions in the context of the Climate Emergency, including working more with residents, communities, businesses and institutions.

 

The report also presented a new Carbon Management Plan for 2021-2026 for approval. The Carbon Management Plan set out in more detail how the Council would reduce its direct carbon emissions from its corporate buildings and fleet vehicles towards net zero carbon.

 

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

  i.  Approved the Council’s Climate Change Strategy for 2021-2026.

  ii.  Approved the Council’s Carbon Management Plan for 2021-2026.

 

Agreed to:

  iii.  Commit to ensuring that all future reports aid understanding of carbon emissions by providing: both percentages of total emissions and the absolute denominator in ktCO2; a definition of the scope of the emissions referred to; and a clear visual representation of the scope of emissions referred to.

  iv.  In addition to presenting data on carbon emissions that are within the Council’s direct influence, explore the feasibility of quantifying the emissions contained within Council’s policy influence and report to Scrutiny Committee in October 2021.

  v.  Explore the feasibility of measuring the impact of the Council’s future activity on emissions within its direct influence and its policy influence and report to Scrutiny Committee  in October 2021.

  vi.  The council will prepare a list of existing for gas fired heating systems under council control and their remaining expected service life.

a.  Scope: All gas consumers included in Appendix 4 Figure 10 (page 123 of reports pack)

b.  Target date: Next committee cycle

 vii.  In addition, the committee notes the already recognised need to complete an asset management plan for all the council’s corporate building, and additionally recommends that the council ensure the plan addresses the following points:

 

For all systems with less than 5 years life remaining prepare a report on the:

a.  Extent of insulation, heating system or other work required to ensure feasibility of low carbon heating 

b.  Current gas consumption 

c.  Estimated combined costs of remedial work and low carbon heating system

 

Output: Prioritised (by tCO2/£) list of urgent works required to avoid future replacement of existing heating systems with gas fired boilers at end of life

 

Target time frame: 12 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 Strategy and Partnerships Manager.

 

Opposition Councillors made the following comments in response to the report:

  i.  The Council needed to do more to mitigate/address climate change.

  ii.  Needed to take more meaningful action as a city and wider area, to do more than the city could on its own.

  iii.  The city should take action and set a good example for other organisations to follow.

 

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

  i.  The Council had a target to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2030.

  ii.  The intention was to reduce direct emissions from buildings and the transport fleet first. Technology options to achieve this were being reviewed eg through the Carbon Management Plan.

  iii.  It was not possible to fully decarbonise all buildings with current technology eg the Council had a gas powered crematorium.

  iv.  The Council was investing in energy efficient measures for housing.

  v.  A report was due in April 2020 looking at how 7,000 council homes could be retrofitted (to various levels) to decarbonise them. (See Housing Revenue Account under remit of Housing Scrutiny Committee).

  vi.  Officers were working with ‘Climate View’ to visualise citywide emissions to break them down into different sectors and then address.

 vii.  Community engagement and work with partners was needed to achieve net zero.

viii.  The Council bid for funding where available to undertake work, but would take action regardless. It would use its resources efficiently as work took high levels of capital investment.

  ix.  The Council planned to use passivhaus standards from 2021 and net zero from 2030. This was phrased as ‘where possible’ in the Strategy as there were constraints on sites the Council proposed to use.

 

The Strategic Director said Housing Scrutiny Committee would review passivhaus standards as it fell under their remit.

 

  x.  The Strategy recognised the Council needed to do more regarding off-setting carbon emissions.

  xi.  Depending on what vehicles were available and most practicable, the Council aimed to use electric and ultra-low emission vehicles in its fleet.

 

The Executive Councillor said:

  i.  The Strategy was work in progress and could be added to over time. A report would be brought back to committee. Consultations and workshops had been undertaken to develop the Strategy.

  ii.  Green investments were separate to off-setting actions.

 

Councillors requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor Summerbell proposed to add the following recommendations (shown in bold) to those in the Officer’s report:

 

Recommendations

The Executive Councillor is recommended to:

1. Approve the Council’s Climate Change Strategy for 2021-2026.

2. Approve the Council’s Carbon Management Plan for 2021-2026.

 

In addition:

 

Amendment 1 for item 6 to read as follows:

 

1.  Commit to ensuring that all future reports aid understanding of carbon emissions by providing: both percentages of total emissions and the absolute denominator in ktCO2; a definition of the scope of the emissions referred to; and a clear visual representation of the scope of emissions referred to.

2.  In addition to presenting data on carbon emissions that are within the Council’s direct influence, explore the feasibility of quantifying the emissions contained within Council’s policy influence and report to Scrutiny Committee in October 2021.

3.  Explore the feasibility of measuring the impact of the Council’s future activity on emissions within its direct influence and its policy influence and report to Scrutiny Committee  in October 2021.

 

Amendment 2 for item 6 to read as follows:

 

The council will prepare a list of existing for gas fired heating systems under council control and their remaining expected service life.

 

Scope: All gas consumers included in  Appendix 4 Figure 10 (page 123 of reports pack)

 

Target date: Next committee cycle

 

In addition, the committee notes the already recognised need to complete an asset management plan for all the council’s corporate building, and additionally recommends that the council ensure that plan addresses the following points:

 

For all systems with  less than 5years life remaining prepare a report on the:

 

2) Extent of insulation, heating system or other work required to ensure feasibility of low carbon heating 

3) Current gas consumption 

4) Estimated combined costs of remedial work and low carbon heating system

 

Output: Prioritised (by tCO2/£) list of urgent works required to avoid future replacement of existing heating systems with gas fired boilers at end of life

 

Target time frame: 12 months. 

 

The Committee unanimously approved these additional recommendations.

 

The Committee resolved to endorse the recommendations as amended by 5 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Councillor Smith asked for it to be asked for it to be noted that she had been unwell at the Strategy and Resources Committee (and had informed the chair of that but didn't want to make a fuss by broadcasting it more widely), and this had prevented her from giving as effective an answer as she would have liked at that point.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Lead officer: David Kidston


01/07/2021 - Greater Cambridge Waste Service - Annual Report ref: 5238    Recommendations Approved

The annual report looking back at the service during 2020/21 is submitted for approval by Exec Cllr.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre

Decision published: 11/10/2021

Effective from: 01/07/2021

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The committee received a report on the Shared Waste Service.

 

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

Noted the report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Shared Waste Service.

 

The Waste Service Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

  i.  Undertook to ask the Waste Service Manager to respond to Councillor Healy’s questions about challenges to the service when government support was withdrawn.

  ii.  The Council was in the top third of recycling rates when compared to other local authorities. All councils had seen an impact from lockdown on recycling rates.

 

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.

Lead officer: Trevor Nicoll


01/07/2021 - Visit Cambridge Destination Management Organisation ref: 5237    Withdrawn

1. Approve the establishment of Visit Cambridge as a legally incorporated destination management organisation
2. Approve the City Council's representation on the Board of Visit Cambridge
3. Approve Visit Cambridge's proposal to appoint an official walking tours partner(s)

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre

Decision published: 11/10/2021

Effective from: 01/07/2021

Decision:

Item withdrawn from agenda.

 

Officers reviewed the paper and identified the need for further work around risk. They recommended not relying solely on the recommendation from Hewitsons Solicitors. The Council had yet to get independent legal advice on the options assessment to see if they agreed with Hewitsons’ assessment.

 

A report would be brought back to committee in future.

Lead officer: Joel Carré


01/07/2021 - Market Square Information Update ref: 5236    Recommendations Approved

No decision

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre

Decision published: 11/10/2021

Effective from: 01/07/2021

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Committee received an information report in response to a formal update request from Councillor Payne, Liberal Democrat Spokes for Communities, Climate Change, Environment, Waste and City Centre, on the process for trial, testing and consultation of the demountable stalls proposed as part of the Market Square Project public consultation draft vision and concept design.

 

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

Noted the information update contained 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 Head of Environmental Services.

 

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

  i.  The council was committed to a demountable stall trial. Referred to the March 2021 Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee report.

  ii.  Officers were in discussion with traders to develop a two stage process.

  iii.  The proposed stalls were already being used in other British markets. They would be trialled in the city to see how they would be received by Cambridge traders and the wider community. If the stalls were a success, there would be a larger trial over the winter period.

  iv.  A report planned for October 2021 would set out how the council could proceed over the winter period so the committee could make an informed response to the officer recommendation. (Post meeting note: Report may no longer coming, but comment reflected intention in July committee.)

  v.  Demountable stalls were one part of the market square redevelopment project to renovate the area.

  vi.  Criteria to select the preferred stall design was being developed by officers in consultation with traders.

a.  Two types of stall would soon be placed in the market square for testing.

b.  Officers were looking to see if other types of stall were acceptable in addition to the City B Group.

c.  Officers would invite people to see the stalls in situ and give feedback.

d.  Feedback over the summer and evaluation criteria would shape officer recommendations (to councillors) on how to proceed (or not) with the winter trial.

 vii.  Other markets around the country did not appear to operate on a seven day principle, but did operate for more than one day. So they set up and took down stalls as Cambridge proposed to do.

viii.  Officers would seek technical specification information from stall suppliers, which could be displayed on the trial stalls so people could see and comment.

  ix.  Officers were meeting traders in 1-2-1 meetings to engage them in the process. Phone calls and emails were used where this was not possible. Traders recognised the need to engage with officers.

  x.  Traders could put items on trial stalls to test if these suited trader display needs. The stalls were display models to show types of stall on offer. They would be available for two weeks, so people may prefer to quickly try them out then have a longer trial over the winter (if this trial went ahead).

  xi.  There was flexibility in market square layout to accommodate different traders’ needs eg food versus clothing traders.

 xii.  Costs for stall set up and take down were a future consideration in later reports. It was expected that costs would be passed onto event organisers (who were using the market square instead of traders).

xiii.  Stalls had not been tested to see if they were windproof (eg would not be blown over). Any information in advertisements was indicative.

xiv.  Every market was different. Stalls would be tested in windy parts of Cambridge to see if they were suitable for the conditions. Public safety and the viability of the market were key concerns. The market was unlikely to be open in stormy weather.

xv.  There were no plans to replace the canopies on existing stalls in the near future. Officers were looking at infrastructure and did not wish to make significant capital investment in the market until the project started.

xvi.  Toilet provision would be looked at in the detailed design stage rather than now at concept design stage.

xvii.  Officers were looking at how to make the best use of the market square. The need to set up and take down stalls depended on how the area was used for different events, so stalls may not need to be taken down each day. There were peaks and troughs in sales on trading days so officers would manage when activity could occur to minimise negative impact on traders. Officers would monitor and manage activities in market square space to minimise the impact of one event on another to protect the market and make best use of the space.

xviii.  Officers were reviewing how to accommodate market stalls around the city due to public safety needs in lockdown. They were looking at alternative locations to host market stalls when the market square was being redeveloped.

xix.  A mix of qualitative and quantitative data was expected in response to the consultation. Officers would review and feedback key issues in a future report to committee.

 

The Committee unanimously to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation. She commented:

  i.  Some traders supported the market square project, some did not.

  ii.  The project would look at renovating infrastructure such as toilets. This would disrupt the market so the intention was to do all work at once including reviewing the design of stalls, to improve the market for traders and shoppers.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Lead officer: Joel Carré


25/03/2021 - Market Square Project: Consultation Draft Vision and Concept Design ref: 5239    Recommendations Approved

To approve the proposed Market Square project vision and concept design for public consultation.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre

Decision published: 11/10/2021

Effective from: 25/03/2021

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Council has embarked on a major public realm capital project to improve Cambridge’s market square, as the city’s principal outdoor civic space and venue for the Council’s popular seven day a week General and Sunday market.

 

The market square, its associated outdoor public realm and market infrastructure, was not up to the quality standard befitting the city’s international status and profile.

 

The Council’s initial project work has involved an assessment of the issues, needs and opportunities associated with the market square space. Using the site assessment findings, the Council, with the support of specialist design and market consultants, has engaged key organisational stakeholders, including market traders, to develop a proposed vision and supporting concept design plan for the square.

 

The Council was now seeking to go out to a six-week public consultation on the proposed vision and concept design, as detailed in Appendix A and B of the Officer’s report after the local elections in May 2021.

 

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

  i.  Approved the proposed consultation draft market square project vision and concept design, as detailed in Appendix A and B respectively, for a six-week public consultation starting in May, as outlined in Section 5 of the Officer’s report.

  ii.  Noted the findings of the market square project operational management and outline business case assessment report in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

  iii.  Agreed not to proceed to the design work on RIBA Stages 3 and 4 until the public consultation was complete and the results had been brought to and approved by this committee.

 

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 Environmental Services.

 

The Executive Councillor and Head of Environmental Services said the market square project should deliver the following benefits:

  i.  Improved market square space.

  ii.  Improved facilities, public realm and waste management.

  iii.  Electrics would be improved which would allow food stalls to be grouped together (which was not possible now).

  iv.  It would be more accessible and easier to clean.

  v.  Should attract more people and so support traders.

  vi.  Looking to restore and improve heritage facilities.

 vii.  Make better use of space.

 

Councillors requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor Matthews proposed to add the following recommendation to those in the Officer’s report:

·   (New ) 2.3 Not to proceed to RIBA Stages 3 and 4 until the public consultation is complete and the results have been brought to and approved by this committee.

 

Councillor Moore proposed revised wording (as agreed with Councilor Matthews):

·   (New ) 2.3 Not to proceed to the design work on RIBA Stages 3 and 4 until the public consultation is complete and the results have been brought to and approved by this committee.

 

The Committee unanimously approved this additional recommendation.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations as amended.

 

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.

Lead officer: Joel Carré