Decisions

The report referred to the Neighbourhood Planning Toolkit which had been updated to cover neighbourhood planning across Greater Cambridge.

 

The toolkit reflected national and local changes and requirements and provided up to date guidance that was effective in supporting neighbourhood forums and parish councils. It had been amended to be more user friendly, with the Toolkit now all being in one document with accompanying appendices.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

      i.          Agreed the updated version of the Neighbourhood Planning Toolkit (2024) (attached at Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report) for use in supporting communities producing neighbourhood plans, and for publication on the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning website.

     ii.          Agreed that any future minor amendments required to the Toolkit to keep it up to date, such as updates to links, legislation and other guidance, be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, and agreed that any material amendments that are required to keep the Toolkit up to date be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure, the Chair and Opposition Spokespersons.

 

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 Principal Planning Policy Officer.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Principal Planning Policy Officer said the following:

      i.          Welcomed Members comments that the updated toolkit was a positive and sensible approach in the development of supporting those who wished to produce neighbourhood plans. 

 

The Committee endorsed the recommendations by 6 votes to 0 with 1 abstention.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

The report referred to the Greater Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) drafted to provide planning guidance to inform development at the existing Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC).

 

The draft SPD did not create policy but set out principles that should be considered in early stages of the planning process to deliver high quality development across the Campus.

 

The guidance provided in the SPD supported existing policies set out in the Cambridge City Council Local Plan (2018) and South Cambridgeshire District Council Local Plan (2018) for the Campus and would form an integral part of the development management process, setting out material considerations for determining planning applications.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

      i.          Agreed the draft Greater Cambridge Biomedical Campus SPD (attached at Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report) and accompanying Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) (Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report) be subject to public consultation.

     ii.          Agreed that the preparation of materials and the running of the consultation be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development. 

   iii.          Agreed that any subsequent material amendments prior to consultation be made by the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Chair and Opposition Spokes and that any subsequent minor amendments and editing changes that do not materially affect the content prior to consultation be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure.

 

 

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 Principal Planning Policy Officer.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Principal Planning Policy Officer and Planning Policy and Strategy Team Leader said the following:

      i.          Cambridge South Station had been planned in terms of a four-platform station.

     ii.          Early engagement with local community groups had identified there were constraints and pinch points concerning movement and bus stop locations.

   iii.          There would be compromises made due to the size and location of the site. 

   iv.          Work had been done on entrance and exit points to the station as part of the movement strategy.

    v.          The station would be operational within the next six to twelve months. Officers would be evaluating how the station was being used, working with Network Rail, The Combined Authority and other external partners, looking at lessons learnt that could be built into emerging Local Plan Policy.

   vi.          Noted the comment that Members thanked Officers for their work on this as there was no Master Plan for this site. There had been so many planning applications on a piecemeal basis, considered by the Joint Development Control Committee, that the document was extremely useful. 

 vii.          Officers were aware that water was a considerable issue and agreed there should be a reduction of water usage for non-clinical usages. Conditions were used for those non-clinical applications regarding water usage through the planning committee process.

viii.          The SPD would supplement the existing adopted Local Plan while work on the emerging Local Plan would maximise delivery of accessibility.

   ix.          The SPD set out in principle the promotion of active travel, encouraging parking for a variety of cycles and other alternative travel alternatives to the car.

    x.          Developers were asked to look at strategies to prioritise the cycling and walking infrastructure and show how they had considered alternative car parking strategies on the campus as part of their planning application.

   xi.          Appreciated that car parking was a significant issue in the local area. Officers had and would continue to work with resident groups, businesses and the landowner group to determine what strategies were required to be put in place. More detailed worked on transport modelling would be undertaken.

 xii.          Officers were also working closely with the County Council as the Highway’s Authority and other external partners such as the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority.

xiii.          There were currently adopted car parking standards for the city through the adopted Local Plan, the SPD could not introduce new policy.

xiv.          There would be individuals when visiting the hospital who had no other choice but to drive, such as those with limited mobility issues or who were sick, and parking needed to be provided.  

xv.          Had noted that some of the planning applications which had been considered by JDCC, had referenced temporary parking and included future use of car parking when no longer required.

xvi.          There were several schemes planned that could change the way that people went in and out of the campus including South Cambridge Station, Cambridge Southeast Transport Scheme (CSET) and the Sawston Greenway.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed 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.

 

To agree to consult on the Draft Greater Cambridge Health Impact Assessment Supplementary Planning Document.

Matter for Decision

The report referred to the purpose of the draft Health Impact Assessment (HIA) SPD which was to provide supplementary guidance on policies in the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan and Cambridge Local Plan that were related to an assessment of health impacts of development.

 

Publication of the draft SPD for comment would ensure the needs and aspirations of the communities and stakeholders were understood and considered when finalising the document.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

      i.          Agreed the draft Health Impact Assessment Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (attached at Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report) and the accompanying Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) (Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report) subject to public consultation.

     ii.          Agreed that the preparation of materials and the running of the consultation be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

   iii.          Agreed that any subsequent material amendments prior to consultation be made by the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Chair and Opposition Spokes and that any subsequent minor amendments and editing changes that do not materially affect the content prior to consultation be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure.

 

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 Principal Planning Policy Officer. 

 

In response to Members’ questions the Principal Planning Policy Officer, the Planning Policy Manager and Deputy Director of GCSP 3C Building Control said the following:

      i.          The SPD sets out the requirements for a full HIA at one hundred plus dwellings which would cover the larger planning applications such as urban extensions.

     ii.          If developers came in slightly under this dwelling threshold there is also a catch-all threshold which could be used if the development could have a significant impact on health.

   iii.          Would consider how and if the following comments could be referenced in the SPD:

·       The report referenced healthy homes having semi-private external spaces but believed the current Local Plan stated access to private external spaces was a requirement.

·       A comment to developers on mitigation of single aspect homes.

·       Advice on future proofing for dwellings (retro fitting) for air source heat pump.

   iv.          The flowchart (p307 of the agenda pack) outlined the general HIA process to the point of submitting a planning application. The difference in screening between South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) and Cambridge City Council (CCC) was down to the adopted Local Plans. SCDC’s Local Plan was very specific regarding the threshold and requirements (twenty to one hundred dwellings)

    v.          Had recommended a higher threshold for CCC of one hundred dwellings or more as the current SCDC Local Plan could not be changed, felt that one hundred dwellings was appropriate based on Officer’s experience and knowledge and the differences between the urban and rural areas.

   vi.          There was also an opportunity to look at the threshold differently with developments with potentially significant health impacts; this allowed the threshold to be lowered if considered appropriate.

 vii.          The best process would be taken forward in the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed 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.

 

To agree to consult on the Draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

The report referred to the purpose of the draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which was to provide guidance on how the Council sought to apply planning obligations, through the Section 106 process, to new development proposals.

 

The SPD would supplement Policy 85: Infrastructure delivery, planning obligations and the Community Infrastructure Levy of the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 and Policy TI/8: Infrastructure and New Developments of the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan 2018, alongside other policies within the adopted development plans that sought to secure infrastructure necessary to support the needs generated by proposed developments.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

      i.          Agreed the draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (attached at Appendix 1) and accompanying Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) (Appendix 2) subject to public consultation.

     ii.          Agreed that the preparation of materials and the running of the consultation be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

   iii.          Agreed that any subsequent material amendments prior to consultation be made by the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Chair and Opposition Spokes and that any subsequent minor amendments and editing changes that do not materially affect the content prior to consultation be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure.

 

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 Delivery Manager. 

 

In response to Members’ questions the Planning Policy Manager, the Delivery Manager and Deputy Director of GCSP 3C Building Control said the following:

        i.          The SPD had been in prepared in accordance with the latest Housing Strategy but would check that it was consistent with the guidance on shared ownership. 

       ii.          The introductory part of the S106 SPD dealt with viability robustly. There was a need to cross reference this within the SPD to ensure there was not an automatic assumption that the amount of affordable housing provided would reduce in percentage terms  if viability could not be meet.

     iii.          Officers were aware of problems with adopted roads, but the issue was not for this SPD but planning conditions which could deal with this area directly.

    iv.           There was a standard condition which could be implemented when dealing with private highways that outlined roads should be built to an adopted standard and charges to be fair and reasonable. This condition could be promoted with Officers.

      v.           Could look to strengthen the wording on Biodiversity Net Gain to outline the requirements and what were aspirational targets.

    vi.           The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement outlined how the Council engaged on planning matters including SPDs.

   vii.          This document was one of the more technical SPD’s, this was deliberate to try to speed up and clarify the process that was used for planning obligations.

 viii.          Officers feed into community led social media platforms through the communications strategy, both at Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, for consultation events.

    ix.           A face-to-face event was also being planned but this would be for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus as it was believed there would be more interest in that SPD.

      x.           When comments to the consultation had been received, Officers would collate the information and identify any changes. The consultation responses and the proposed changes would be shared with the Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee at a later meeting.

    xi.           Would seek to clarify the percentages of s106 sites above 15 homes to be allocated for social rent (paragraph 4.23, p107 & p108 of the agenda pack).

   xii.          Safeguards in the Housing Strategy document and the SPD were in place, so affordable housing provision mirrored market housing provisions.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

   iv.          Agreed the draft Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (attached at Appendix 1) and accompanying Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) (Appendix 2) subject to public consultation.

    v.          Agreed that the preparation of materials and the running of the consultation be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development.

   vi.          Agreed that any subsequent material amendments prior to consultation be made by the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure, in consultation with the Chair and Opposition Spokes and that any subsequent minor amendments and editing changes that do not materially affect the content prior to consultation be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure.

 

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 Delivery Manager. 

 

In response to Members’ questions the Planning Policy Manager, the Delivery Manager and Deputy Director of GCSP 3C Building Control said the following:

 xiii.          The SPD had been in prepared in accordance with the latest Housing Strategy but would check that it was consistent with the guidance on shared ownership. 

 xiv.          The introductory part of the S106 SPD dealt with viability robustly. There was a need to cross reference this within the SPD to ensure there was not an automatic assumption that the amount of affordable housing provided would reduce in percentage terms  if viability could not be meet.

  xv.          Officers were aware of problems with adopted roads, but the issue was not for this SPD but planning conditions which could deal with this area directly.

 xvi.          There was a standard condition which could be implemented when dealing with private highways that outlined roads should be built to an adopted standard and charges to be fair and reasonable. This condition could be promoted with Officers.

xvii.           Could look to strengthen the wording on Biodiversity Net Gain to outline the requirements and what were aspirational targets.

xviii.           The Council’s Statement of Community Involvement outlined how the Council engaged on planning matters including SPDs.

 xix.          This document was one of the more technical SPD’s, this was deliberate to try to speed up and clarify the process that was used for planning obligations.

  xx.          Officers feed into community led social media platforms through the communications strategy, both at Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, for consultation events.

 xxi.          A face-to-face event was also being planned but this would be for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus as it was believed there would be more interest in that SPD.

xxii.           When comments to the consultation had been received, Officers would collate the information and identify any changes. The consultation responses and the proposed changes would be shared with the Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee at a later meeting.

xxiii.           Would seek to clarify the percentages of s106 sites above 15 homes to be allocated for social rent (paragraph 4.23, p107 & p108 of the agenda pack).

xxiv.          Safeguards in the Housing Strategy document and the SPD were in place, so affordable housing provision mirrored market housing provisions.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed 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.

mittee unanimously endorsed 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.

 

To provide an update on the Greater Cambridge Local Plan Timetable.

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update regarding the Local Plan Timetable (previously called the Local Development Scheme (LDS)), which was a timetable for the production of new or revised development plan documents that set out the planning policy framework for Greater Cambridge. It was being prepared jointly between South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council as the Plans in preparation were both joint Plans for the authorities’ combined area. The Councils were required to keep the Timetable up to date.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

                          i.          Agreed the Local Plan Timetable Update at Appendix 1 (of the Officer’s report) be added as a November 2024 Addendum to the Greater Cambridge Development Scheme 2022 (updating the current March 2024 Addendum) and published on the Greater Cambridge Planning website.

                         ii.          Agreed an updated formal Greater Cambridge Local Plan Timetable be brought to Members in spring 2025 once there is clarity on the transitional date for plans under the current plan-making system to be submitted, and also on the outcome of the Cambridge Wastewater Treatment Plant Development Consent Order.

 

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 Planning Policy and Strategy Team Leader

 

In response to Members’ questions the Planning Policy and Strategy Team Leader, Strategic Planning Manager and Deputy Director, Greater Cambridge Shared Planning and 3C Building Control said the following:

      i.          Officers agreed there was a level of risk and uncertainty regarding the impact of the Cambridge Development Group (CDG)’s work on the Greater Cambridge Local Plan.

     ii.          Engagement with the CDG had not yet been in depth, but the Government had announced a re-set of that relationship in the Summer.

With the October 2024 budget announcement of funding towards a growth in Cambridge it was hoped there would be further clarity and engagement between Officers and Government Ministers.     

   iii.          In the engagement that was taking place with Government, all opportunities were being taken to highlight the work on the emerging Local Plan and issues raised, through regular meetings with Ministers, through the CPCA and the Water Scarcity Group. Officers have been advocating in all meetings that the Local Plan should be the first step for any longer term growth ambitions; the evidence already produced should form the basis for any future planning.

   iv.          Officers suggested that the proposed approach of continuing work on the emerging Local Plan, whilst continuing to engage with the CDG, was a proactive and positive response to the current context, noting that Government’s wider ambitions were for local authorities to progress local plans as quickly as possible.

    v.          The proposed draft revised timetable aim was to submit the Greater Cambridge Local Plan by the end of December 2026, to meet the Government’s proposed cut-off date for submitting Local Plans for Examination under the current system. The timetable deadlines involved were tight. It was important that dialogue between Officers and the Committee was kept open and that Members were kept updated.

   vi.          Officers would engage with Government to ensure that work already done could be transferred to the new system if necessary, in case the December 2026 date could not be met.

 vii.          Officers were mindful of uncertainties in any Plan. The aim was to produce a flexible Plan, but also recognising the need to remain evidence based to be found sound at examination.

 

The Executive Councillor stated that the Leader of the Council, Councillor Davey had met with Peter Freeman (Chair of the CDG), and it would be appropriate that certain questions were directed to Councillor Davey rather than Officers 

  

The Committee unanimously endorsed the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor

 

Matter for Decision

The report referred to Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority belief that the way local buses were run needed to change to improve the local bus system for communities that relied on it. The CPCA consultation document explained why the Combined Authority recommends bus franchising as the way to do this, based on its assessment of the Proposed Franchising Scheme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure.

      i.          Agreed Cambridge City Council’s response to the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority consultation on bus franchising.

 

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, who then introduced the CPCA’s Executive Director of Place and Connectivity, Judith Barker. 

 

Councillor A Smith was also present as the City Council’s Transport Lead at the CPCA.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Executive Director of Place and Connectivity, the Assistant Chief Executive and Councillor A Smith said the following:

      i.          The business case covered  a thirty-year period from 2023 to 2054 and highlighted funding made up for a medium level investment scenario, highlighting the  following:

a)   Under the franchising model the CPCA would receive the fare income (currently received by the bus operating companies) which would be a large part of the affordability.

b)   Assumed that Government grants would continue at current levels and not increase.

c)    Cambridgeshire County Council and Peterborough City Council as the Highways Authorities paid a transport levy to the CPCA to undertake the role of the Strategic Transport Authority, which would continue.

d)   The forecast for the Mayoral precept would increase over the period.

     ii.           The business case assumed the mayoral precept of £12 in  the year 2023/24 rather than the £36 precept of 2024/25 due to the year the document was written. 

   iii.          Would highlight that some of the income discussed was less than certain, the Mayoral precept was set annually as part of the budget setting process, made in consideration of the spending requirements and the funding available.

   iv.          As part of the process of setting the business case a range of various funding options had been considered. However, had only included the options that offered the greatest income potential in the business plan.

    v.          If franchising were to go ahead, there would be a considerable amount of change to be made before the decision could be implemented. It had taken Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) three years from the Mayoral decision to the first phase of franchising to be applied.

   vi.          The CPCA would continue to work on the Greater Cambridge Transport Strategy alongside the emerging Greater Cambridge Local Plan; one of the issues to be addressed would be congestion.

 vii.          Several work streams had been identified before implementation such as the commercial and procurement strategy, customer service, ICT requirements, governance, staffing etc. All of which had to be resilient and the appropriate risk management in place.

viii.          It was important to ensure that the small and medium operators would be able to access the market.

   ix.          Believed that franchising offered greater control, with a possibility of cross subsidy from routes that had greater profit-making ability.

    x.          Needed to look at how the system worked as whole and the connectivity. With a better functional bus service, it could be assumed that more people would use public transport meaning fewer people would choose to use their cars.

   xi.          The CPCA Transport and Infrastructure Committee had met earlier today and discussed the Greater Cambridge Transport Strategy and the ongoing commitment to sustainable travel.

 xii.          The Council’s response had been drafted in a way that positively supported the proposals but given the complexity of the proposals it did not hold the Council accountable as there was a degree of risk and uncertainty.

xiii.          The CPCA was taking a slightly different approach to GMCA and to London Transport; London was governed by a different set of legislation but was following the 2017 Bus Services Act as GMCA had. However, the CPCA had a different business plan as GMCA had not only taken control of the bus routes but had purchased the buses and were contracting operators to deliver sections of their service splitting the area covered by the Combined Authority into three.

xiv.          The CPCA had a bus depot strategy which had identified the funding in the business case to run the depot but would contract the buses and the operations together.

xv.          The consultation would run to 20 November and would go through due process with the CPCA Board and then a Mayoral decision early 2025.

xvi.          Could not pre-determine the decision which was why implementation would take time as outlined there would be a large amount of work to be completed.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

a) To review the work completed on the Herbicide Reduction Plan.
b) To consider and approve methodologies for weed control.
c) To approve an integrated weed control policy for the City.

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.

 

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.

 

a. To approve proposals for public realm improvements in Abbey ward.
b. To approve proposals for improvements to play areas and open spaces in those parts of the city where relevant S106 funding is available and there is a particular need to make appropriate use of relevant S106 contributions.
c. To approve a new process whereby any generic S106 funds in the play provision, informal open space and public realm contribution types, which are within two years of the date by which they need to be used or contractually committed, may be de-allocated from a project that is unlikely to deliver on time, so that they could be re allocated to another relevant project (related to where the S106 contributions are from) which could make timely use of this funding.

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:

 

	Project proposals	Amount	See
a.	Towards mature tree-planting programme in parks across the city	£60,000	Paragraph 4.3
b.	Footpath improvements at Five Trees open space, East Chesterton	£10,000	Paragraph 4.4
c.	Open space improvements at Romsey Recreation Ground	£11,500	Paragraph 4.5

 

     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.

 

To approve the Community Wealth Building Strategy.

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.

 

a. To approve recommended S106 public art grants in those parts of Cambridge where generic S106 funding for public art is available and where eligible grant applications have been received in November-December 2023.
b. To approve a Public Art Commissioning Strategy.
c. To approve a new process whereby any generic S106 funds in the public art category, which are within two years of the date by which they need to be used or contractually committed, may be de-allocated from a project that is unlikely to deliver on time, so that they could be re allocated to another relevant project which could make timely use of this funding.

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).

 

Project	Public art S106 funding
More Playful Art, Please!	Up to £60,000
Urban Voices (four x phase 1 Area projects of up to £30,000, plus a phase 2 project)	Up £187,000
Romsey Recreation Ground	Up to £66,000

 

   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.

 

Approval and adoption of the Cambridge City Council Cultural Strategy (2024-2029).

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.

 

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.

 

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.