Decisions

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.