Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register
To agree the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission (regulation 19) and supporting documents, topic papers and evidence for future public consultation, contingent upon the separate Development Control Order being undertaken by Anglian Water for the relocation of the Waste Water Treatment Plant being approved.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 04/05/2022
Effective from: 11/01/2022
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report sought agreement of the Proposed
Submission North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (AAP) that
establishes the Councils, policies, and
proposals for managing development, regeneration, and investment in
North East Cambridge over the next twenty years and beyond.
Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy
and Transport.
i.
Agreed the North East Cambridge Area Action
Plan: Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) (Appendix
A1) and Proposed Submission Policies Map (Appendix A2) for
future public consultation, contingent upon the separate Development Control
Order being undertaken by Anglian Water for the relocation of the Waste Water
Treatment Plant being approved.
ii.
Noted the Draft Final Sustainability Report
(Appendix B of the Officer’s report), and Habitats Regulation Assessment
(Appendix C of the Officer’s report) and agree them as supporting
documents to the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed
Submission (Regulation 19) that will also be subject
to future public consultation.
iii.
Agreed the following supporting documents
to future public consultation:
a.
Statement of Consultation, including the
Councils’ consideration of and responses to representations received to
the draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (Regulation
18) consultation 2020 (Appendix D of the Officer’s report)
b.
Duty to Cooperate Compliance Statement (Appendix
(Appendix E of the Officer’s report)
c.
Draft Duty to Cooperate Statement of Common
Ground (Appendix F of the Officer’s report)
d.
Equalities Impact Assessment (Appendix G
of the Officer’s report)
e.
Topic papers (Appendix H of the Officer’s
report).
iv.
Agreed the findings of the following background evidence
documents prepared by the Councils that have informed the North
East Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission and are proposed to
accompany future public consultation:
a.
Typologies Study and Development Capacity
Assessment (Appendix I1 of the Officer’s report);
b.
Surface Water Drainage Core Principles (Appendix
I2 of the Officer’s report)
c.
Chronology of the feasibility investigations of
redevelopment of the Cambridge Wastewater Treatment Plant (Appendix I3 of the
Officer’s report).
v.
Noted the findings of the background evidence
documents that have informed the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan:
Proposed Submission and are proposed to accompany the public
consultation (see Background documents to the Officer’s report)
vi.
Agreed that any subsequent material amendments
be made by the Cambridge Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport
in consultation with Chair and Spokes, and by the South Cambridgeshire Lead
Member for Planning, both in consultation with the Joint Local Planning Advisory
Group (JLPAG).
vii.
Agreed that any subsequent minor amendments and
editing changes be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic in
consultation with Cambridge Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and
Transport and by the South Cambridgeshire Lead Member for Planning.
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 Member’s comments the Principal Planning Policy
Officer, Strategic Planning Consultant and Joint Director of Planning and
Economic Development said the following:
i.
As part of the AAP the retail and town centre
evidence-based study had been updated, considering the revised development
numbers and amendments to the spatial framework.
ii.
Five local centres had now been proposed rather
than the original four.
iii.
All homes would be within a five-minute walk of
the retail centre that would accommodate resident’s day to day needs.
iv.
The shop policy had been designed to encourage a
variety of individual retailers. In total there would be around 107 units
available.
v.
Appreciated that residents would need access to
supermarkets and the AAP outlined five food stores to come forward within those
centres.
vi.
Advised that people’s shopping habits had
changed with an increase in on-line shopping; were promoting consolidation hubs
which would minimise vehicle movements within the APP area.
vii.
With no onsite secondary school provision, safe
and convenient pedestrian and cycle routes for children to access local schools
in the area had been explored.
viii.
Welcomed the redevelopment of the Cambridge
Business Park which would include a mix of business, residential and community
use.
ix.
One of the constraints of the Science Park was
the lengthy leases that some of the buildings had, if development had been
allocated on to those individual plots it would not be possible to demonstrate
that the Plan was deliverable within the plan period.
x.
Envisaged that residential streets in the AAP
area would not be a place where vehicles would be parked, and the streets would
become part of public life.
xi.
Reluctant to place a definition on the term
‘local people’ used in the AAP. However, there was a local connection test used
for brownfield sites which could be applicable.
xii.
Privately managed community facilities were
secured with a community use agreement through planning permission which
ensured community use. Those facilities also had to remain commercially viable.
xiii.
Affordable housing needed to be truly
affordable. Housing officers would assist in setting the correct rent levels.
xiv.
Currently there were provision for three primary
schools. Discussions were being held with County Council Officers to rethink
how a school building should be designed, moving away from the single storey
land hungry element, and becoming multi-functional.
xv.
A secondary school had not been proposed as The
County Council forecast did not deem a secondary school necessary in the AAP
area. This would also mean those living in the area would integrate more widely
with those outside of the area.
xvi.
Secondary schools were incredibly land hungry
and expensive to deliver and there would be significant implications on some of
the delivery of the AAP should such a school be built.
xvii.
Agreed it was important to understand the
delivery of spaces and the quantity of activities that could take place within
them.
xviii.
Recognised the significance of the relationship
between density, open space and the impact on residents including their mental
health.
xix.
Officers had spent large amount of time over a
number of years speaking with representatives from the Science Park to discuss
how the space could be integrated within the community.
xx.
Acknowledged the comment that the Arcadia
development was viewed as ‘insular’ by residents and had engaged with the
landowners to ensure that new facilities were much more generous and open.
xxi.
Noted the concern expressed regarding the amount
of formal open space provision.
Councillor Bick proposed and Councillor Porrer seconded the
following amendment to the recommendation (additional text underlined, and
deleted text struck through):
The Executive Councillor
is recommended to:
1. Agree the North East
Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) (Appendix
A1) and Proposed Submission Policies Map (Appendix A2) for
future public consultation, contingent upon the separate Development Control
Order being undertaken by Anglian Water for the relocation of the Waste Water
Treatment Plant being approved;
2. Note the Draft Final
Sustainability Report (Appendix B), and Habitats Regulation Assessment
(Appendix C) and agree them as supporting documents to the North
East Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) that
will also be subject to future public consultation;
3. Agree the following
supporting documents to future public consultation: a.
Statement of Consultation, including the Councils’ consideration of and
responses to representations received to the draft North East Cambridge
Area Action Plan (Regulation 18) consultation 2020
(Appendix D); b. Duty to Cooperate
Compliance Statement (Appendix E); c. Draft Duty to
Cooperate Statement of Common Ground (Appendix F); d. Equalities
Impact Assessment (Appendix G); e. Topic papers
(Appendix H).
4. Agree the findings of
the following background evidence documents prepared by the Councils that
have informed the North East Cambridge Page 762 Report page no. 3
Agenda page no. Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission and are proposed to
accompany future public consultation: a. Typologies Study
and Development Capacity Assessment (Appendix I1); b. Surface Water
Drainage Core Principles (Appendix I2); c. Chronology of the feasibility
investigations of redevelopment of the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant
(Appendix I3).
5. Note the findings of
the background evidence documents that have informed the North East
Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission and are proposed
to accompany the public consultation (see Background documents to this
report);
6. Agree that any subsequent material
amendments be made by the Cambridge Executive Councillor for Planning Policy
and Transport in consultation with Chair and Spokes, and by the South
Cambridgeshire Lead Member for Planning, both in consultation with the
JLPAG;
7. Agree that any
subsequent minor amendments and editing changes be delegated to the Joint
Director of Planning and Economic in consultation with Cambridge Executive
Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport and by the South Cambridgeshire
Lead Member for Planning.
1. Defer decisions on the
North East Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) and
Proposed Submission Policies Map for the shortest feasible period until options
of alternative mixes allowing greater on-site achievement of the Local Plan
policy standard for formal open space have been considered by members.
The Joint
Director for Planning and Economic Development advised the work required to
consider the alternative mix of land use and the consultation process would
take a further twelve-months to develop and then to engage with statutory
consultees. A delay could create a risk
that the Development Consent Order Process would not proceed until the AAP had
been agreed which would impact the Local Plan and AAP timetable. The current
trajectory for adoption of the Local Plan was that the Plan would be more than
five years old. An out of date Local Plan would mean that local polices would
be given less weight for planning decisions.
The amendment
was lost by 3 votes to 5 votes.
The Committee
The Committee endorsed the recommendations as set out in the
Officer’s report by 5 votes to 0.
The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive
Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Caroline Hunt
To agree publication of the report.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 04/05/2022
Effective from: 11/01/2022
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report referred to the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR)
for Greater Cambridge 2020-2021.
Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy
and Transport.
i.
Agreed the Cambridge City Council and South
Cambridgeshire District Council - Authority Monitoring Report for Greater
Cambridge 2020-2021 (included as Appendix A of the Officer’s report) for
publication on the Councils’ websites.
ii.
Delegated any further minor editing changes to
the Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council -
Authority Monitoring Report for Greater Cambridge 2020-2021 to the Joint
Director of Planning and Economic Development, in consultation with the
Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, and the Chair and
Spokes for the Planning Policy and Transport Scrutiny Committee, including the
final designed version of Appendix 3.
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 Senior Policy
Planner and Principal Planning Policy Officer who in response to Members’
questions said the following:
i.
The main reason the total number of completions
of affordable housing was lower than 40% was that the policy only requires 40%
affordable homes on schemes of 15 dwellings or more, a lower requirement of 25%
affordable homes applies to schemes of 10-14 dwellings, and there is no
requirement for affordable housing on sites with 10 dwellings or less in
accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.
ii.
It is important to differentiate between
permissions and completions when looking at the affordable housing data. A
planning permission that secures 40% affordable homes may not complete 40%
affordable homes each year, instead the proportion of affordable homes
completed on a development will vary each year.
iii.
Out of the 850 completions so far at the
Eddington site, 686 were affordable, therefore currently at 81% affordable
homes. The policy is for 50% affordable homes on this development, and
therefore this is what we would expect to see when the scheme is completed.
iv.
The reference to life expectancy in the city was
looked at in terms of general impacts of our policies and therefore is
considered at district level.
v.
The AMR currently looks at delivery of new
developments in terms of new homes and new buildings, but can look to include
wider information in future, such as delivery of other infrastructure like the
bus route through Darwin Green. Also, in terms of transport schemes, the AMR
does not provide an update on all schemes, it just highlights those where
progress has been made in the monitoring year, which is why the Greater
Cambridge Partnership Milton Road Scheme has not been specifically mentioned.
vi.
With regards to the local centres with below 50%
retail, the 6 centres had been referenced on p298 of the Officer’s report.
vii.
The purpose of the AMR is to look backwards and
therefore reports up to April 2021. There is also now an obligation to report
on s106 outcomes each year. Neither would pick up outstanding works, but this
was something that could be looked at for future reporting.
The Committee
The Committee unanimously endorsed the Officers
recommendations.
The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive
Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
Lead officer: Stephen Kelly
The report will provide an update on the revised scheme for existing and new Taxicard members with recommendations for that scheme and for the future provision of Transport Initiatives for the disabled and Bus Subsidies.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 04/05/2022
Effective from: 11/01/2022
Decision:
Matter for Decision
At the June Planning and Transport meeting, the Executive
Councillor approved the undertaking of a review in relation to the Council’s
Transport Initiatives. This would include the City Council’s Taxicard Scheme,
Cambridge City Bus Subsidies and Cambridge Dial-a-Ride.
The review was to have been undertaken working with the
Council’s partners including the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) but had
been completed without input from the GCP due to resource constraints.
The report referred to the recommendations in relation to
the review.
Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy
and Transport.
i.
Approved the proposed changes to the Taxicard
scheme for Taxicard members to be implemented from 1 April 2022.
ii.
Agreed to stop the provision of the City
Council’s subsidy for the Citi 1 Night Bus Service from 1 April 2022.
iii.
Approved the continuation to fund Cambridge
Dial-a-Ride with a Grant Agreement for the 2022/23 financial year to the value
of £40k.
iv.
Noted future joined up working with
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) and the GCP regarding
existing City bus subsidies linked with the Bus Service Improvement Plan and
City Access projects.
v.
Continued to approve the Head of Human
Resources’ delegated authority, in liaison with the Executive Councillor for
Planning and Transport, and consultation with the Chair and Spokespersons for
Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee, to make any changes that may be
necessary to support the transport initiatives and schemes going forward, until
such time as a wider decision around the policy and strategy decisions is
agreed
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable
Scrutiny Considerations
The Committee received a report from the Head of Human
Resources and the Corporate Business & Executive Support Manager.
The Corporate Business & Executive Manager informed the
Committee there was an error in the report at paragraph 3.2, in respect of the
times of operation for the Stagecoach Citi 2 and 3 services, in so far as the
times not all being shown as a 24-hour clock. For the Citi 2, ‘1046’
should have read ‘2246’ and for the Citi 3, ‘1032’ as ‘2232’. To confirm, the
Citi 3, 2240, 2310 and 2340 departures from Cherry Hinton Tesco run as
commercial services.
In response to comments made by the Committee, the Head of
Human Resources, the Corporate Business & Executive Support Manager and
Executive Councillor said the following:
i.
In respect of Citi 2 and 3 bus services the
times had not been converted to the 24-hour clock.
ii.
As the Taxicard scheme continues a report should
be brought to committee at a later date to provide an update on how the changes
to the scheme had met the original aim of increasing Taxicard membership and to
feedback on how the scheme was being promoted which to date had included
Cambridge Matters and Open Door.
iii.
The taxi card scheme is relevant to an
individual; if there are two members of a family eligible to qualify for a
Taxicard they could apply and receive vouchers in their own right.
iv.
Would hope there would be an increase in the
number of individuals using the scheme when the next report was brought to
Committee.
v.
Noted the comment that the budget for the
provision of Bus Subsidies would be reduced if the recommendations were
approved to stop the provision of the Citi 1 Nightbus.
vi.
Noted the concern expressed at the equalities
audit in relation to the Taxicard scheme which had looked at the scheme in
general but did not address what would happen to those individuals who run out
of vouchers.
vii.
Advised that the budget for the Taxicard scheme
had been underspent for many years and there was no proposal to cut the
budget for this scheme; the vouchers could only be used in the full amount and
therefore with the revision of different denominations of voucher value, the
option to use as many vouchers per trip and the changes made to the eligibility
criteria on the application form would mean greater flexibility for
members.
Councillor Porrer proposed and Councillor Bick seconded the
following amendments to the recommendation (additional text underlined, and
deleted text struck through):
1. Approve the proposed changes to the
Taxicard scheme for Taxicard members to be implemented from 1 April 2022 – see
3.1.1.
Defer
the proposed changes to the Taxicard scheme until a full report of the
budgetary context of the reduced value of vouchers provided to
eligible participants has been considered by councillors, along with
further feedback on how those who will run out of vouchers can be
supported, in particular those on lower incomes and with protected
characteristics, and a revised Equalities Audit provided which
fully notes the survey responses and the reduction in allowance per scheme
member.
2. Stop the provision
of the City Council’s subsidy for the Citi 1 Night Bus Service from 1 April
2022 – see 3.2.1
Councillor Bick then
proposed and Councillor Porrer seconded the following amendments to the
recommendation (additional text underlined, and deleted text struck through):
2(a) Review and decide
the future of the subsidy for the Citi 1 Night Bus only when information on
users, costs and contract can be presented for consideration;
2(b) Seek to recover the
subsidy paid over the period that the service was not operated and to
recommence payments as soon as Stagecoach is prepared to re-start the
service.
3. Continue to fund
Cambridge Dial-a-Ride with a Grant Agreement for the 2022/23 financial year to
the value of £40k - see 3.3.1.
4. Note future joined up
working with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) and the
GCP regarding existing City bus subsidies linked with the Bus Service
Improvement Plan and City Access projects – see 3.4.1
5. Continue to approve
the Head of Human Resources’ delegated authority, in liaison with the Executive
Councillor for Planning and Transport, and consultation with the Chair and
Spokesperson for Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee, to make any changes
that may be necessary to support the transport initiatives and schemes going
forward, until such time as a wider decision around the policy and strategy
decisions is agreed.
A vote on was taken on
both amendments which was lost by 3 votes to 5 votes.
The Committee
The Committee endorsed the Officers recommendations by 5
votes to 3 Votes.
The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive
Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Deborah Simpson
Whether the proposed sale of the freehold interest is approved
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 04/05/2022
Effective from: 28/03/2022
Decision:
Matter for Decision
The report referred to the leaseholder’s request of 11
Thorpe Way to buy the freehold of the property.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and
External Partnerships
i.
Approved the freehold transfer of 11 Thorpe Way
to the current leaseholder.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny Considerations
The Committee considered a report from the Head of Property
Services.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the
recommendation.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive
Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Dave Prinsep
To recommend to Council to approve in principle, the carry forward of estimated revenue budget amounts from 2021/22 to 2022/23.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 04/05/2022
Effective from: 28/03/2022
Decision:
Matter for Decision
This report presented details of anticipated variances from
budgets, where resources were requested to be carried forward into the 2022/23
financial year in order to undertake or complete activities anticipated to have
taken place in 2021/22.
Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and
Resources
i.
Agreed the provisional carry forward requests,
totalling £579,010 as detailed in Appendix A of the Officer’s report,
recommended to Council to approve, subject to the final outturn position.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny Considerations
The Committee considered a report from the Head of Finance.
In response to a question on the underspend on Finance General (p39, appendix A) and whether that meant
that services had not been delivered as budgeted, the Head of Finance advised
this information would be provided outside of the meeting as the cost centre
was a mix of different corporate amounts and she would have to look at the
detail.
The Committee unanimously resolved by 4 votes to 0 to
endorse the recommendation.
The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive
Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Caroline Ryba
Note the achievements and progress of the strategic partnerships that the City Council is engaged with.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for External Partnerships
Decision published: 04/05/2022
Effective from: 28/03/2022
Decision:
The report provided
an update on the work of the following partnerships:
· The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
Combined Authority (including the Business Board)
· Greater Cambridge Partnership
· Fast Growing Cities
·
Innovation Corridor (London-Stanstead-Cambridge
Consortium)
· Cambridge – Milton Keynes – Oxford Arc.
The report
highlighted the considerable amount of activity that was taking place in
tackling some of the “big challenges” that the city was facing. It also
outlined the ongoing joint working between partners and government to help meet
these challenges. This year had included responding to the pandemic, which
involved partners findings ways to pull together to both ameliorate and find
solutions to its impacts.
Decision of
Executive Councillor for External Partnerships
i.
Noted the achievements and progress of the
strategic partnerships that the City Council is engaged with, outlined in the
Officer’s report.
Reason for the
Decision
As set out in the
Officer’s report.
Any Alternative
Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny
Considerations
The Committee
considered a report from the Assistant Chief Executive.
In response to a question
concerning the Oxford to Cambridge Arc the Executive Councillor advised that
this was not a Central Government priority. However, the City Council was keen
to develop broader relationships with those councils along the Arc and to
secure East West Rail.
The Committee
discussed the Fast-Growing Cities referenced in the report, the returns on the
financial contributions these cities made to national Government and how
strategic lobbying of government was needed to support fast-growing cities.
The Assistant Chief
Executive responded that over the last ten years the Council had secured a
large amount of Government funding, referencing examples from the Government
funded City Deal (the most generous deal per head per population of any City
Deals done at that time), the Combined Authority funding including £70million
for 500 council houses in Cambridge, and the potential £200+million for the
relocation of the waste water treatment plant from North East Cambridge. But
despite these grants and future funding the city faced economic, environmental,
and social challenges.
The Executive
Councillor highlighted the work that the Centre for Cities think tank had completed,
including a report on the impact of COVID on cities. Although the Council did
not agree with all the suggestions put forward, the need for affordable housing
and highlighting the inequality throughout the city strengthened the
requirement for continued funding.
In answer to a
question concerning the projects that had been put forward for funding from the
Combined Authority’s medium-term budget, the Executive Councillor stated
normally there would have been greater engagement with members for their input,
but this had not been possible due to the deadline set had meant additional
work for officers during the budget setting period and other major works.
The City Portrait
(p20) referenced in the report was part of the language used in doughnut economics;
a relatively low-cost project to produce a summary analysis of equality,
climate, and environmental impacts in the city.
Noted the comment
that the work had been undertaken on the Local Plan and emerging Greater
Cambridge Local Plan which was an opportunity to link this work and City
Portrait work together.
Agreed that the
Combined Authority should encourage all Councillors and the public to have an
input in future projects and works.
The Assistant Chief
Executive advised there were various sources of gathering data which the
Council could explore. The Combined Authority-funded City Portrait project
could determine if these research methods were applicable which may help inform
balanced and rounded decision making understanding the interplay between the
social, environmental, and economic factors.
The Committee unanimously
resolved to endorse the recommendation.
The Executive
Councillor approved the recommendation.
Conflicts of
Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of
interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Graham Saint
To agree a policy statement on how the council will implement the government’s new First Homes initiative on new developments.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 04/05/2022
Effective from: 15/03/2022
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
First Homes is a new form of affordable home
ownership aimed at first time buyers. National Guidance states that 25% of all
new affordable housing provided as developer contributions on section 106 sites
should be provided as First Homes (with a few exceptions). Other requirements
also apply although local authorities are allowed some limited flexibilities in
how they bring First Homes forward.
This report recommends how the national
policy should be implemented locally through a proposed First Homes Interim
Position Statement for Greater Cambridge which is attached at Appendix 1 to the
report.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Approved
the First Homes Interim Position Statement at Appendix 1 to the officer’s
report, in particular that:
a.
The
preferred split between affordable housing tenures will be: 25% First Homes; 5%
shared ownership or other intermediate tenures; and 70% social/affordable rent.
b.
The
price cap for a First Home, once the discount has been applied, will be
£250,000 in line with the maximum cap allowed within national guidance.
c.
The
discount applied to a First Home will be 30% of market value in line with the
minimum discount allowed within the national guidance.
d.
The
household income cap for eligible applicants for First Homes will be up to
£80,000 in line with the maximum income allowed with in the national guidance.
e.
For
developments which cross the boundary into South Cambridgeshire, and/or where
joint nominations on the affordable homes have been agreed, any purchaser of a
First Home will need to have a local connection to either Cambridge
City or South Cambridgeshire District Council; this will apply for the first
three months of marketing in line with national guidance.
f.
For
developments within Cambridge City which do not cross the boundary into South
Cambridge or where no joint nominations on the affordable housing have been
agreed, any purchaser of a First Home will need to have a local connection to
Cambridge City. This will apply for the first three months of marketing in line
with national guidance.
g.
The
First Homes local connection criteria to be applied will be as detailed in
paragraphs 4.21 to 4.27 of the First Homes Interim Position Statement shown at
Appendix 1 to this report.
h.
No
specific priority will be given to ‘key workers’ but the council may work with
developers and employer organisations to ensure that marketing is targeted
towards particular employers where appropriate.
i.
Where
developers wish to bring forward a First Homes exception site in Cambridge City
they will need to demonstrate that the availability of First Homes or other
affordable home ownership tenures is insufficient within Cambridge City to
cater for the needs of first-time buyers.
j.
The First Homes Interim Position Statement at
Appendix 1 to this report will only be used when a development proposal
includes reference to First Homes as part of affordable housing provision. If a
development proposal does not refer to First Homes, the affordable housing
split detailed in Annexe 5 of the Greater Cambridge Housing Strategy 2019-2023
(or successor document) will apply.
k.
Any
subsequent minor amendments and editing changes to the First Homes Interim
Position Statement and/or the First Homes Issues & Options paper, that do
not materially affect the content, be delegated to the Director of Housing
& Communities in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing,
the Executive Councillor for Planning and relevant Chairs and Spokes.
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 Housing Strategy
Manager.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Expressed
concerns with the concept of ‘First Homes’ and noted that in Appendix 1
paragraph 4.13 that a household would need an income of £55,000 per year to be
able to afford a First Home in Cambridge and that average salaries are much
lower than that. Queried how many people would be able to benefit from this new
scheme.
ii.
Supported
comments made in i. above. Felt the way in which Central Government had
developed the scheme that it may do more harm than good. Queried recommendation
h which stated that no specific priority would be given to key workers. Noted that the Mayor in London had created a
definition for key workers. Asked if any data had been gathered regarding
housing need in certain key areas / jobs. Would welcome a definition of ‘key
worker’ going forward.
The Housing Strategy Manager said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Noted
in relation to the query regarding recommendation h that Addenbrookes had
undertaken a piece of work looking at gaps in housing need for their
workers. Officers had also had
discussions with Cambridgeshire County Council about their workers; they had
said that they would provide evidence around housing need and the impact on
their services but this had not been provided to date.
The Executive Councillor drew attention to a
letter which had been sent to Michael Gove on pages 125-130 of the agenda which set out the
council’s concerns regarding First Homes.
The Committee resolved by 6 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.
Lead officer: Helen Reed
Regular update on the delivery of new council homes under the 500 programme, together with an update on the work being undertaken to deliver an additional 1,000 Council homes, building on the success of the current programme.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 04/05/2022
Effective from: 15/03/2022
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report provided an update on the housing
development programme.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Noted the continued progress on the delivery of the approved
housing programme.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the
Officer’s report.
Any Alternative
Options Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny
Considerations
The Committee
received a report from the Head of the Housing
Development Agency.
The Head of the Housing Development Agency said the following in
response to Members’ questions:
i.
The housing development programme was a 10-year
programme to deliver 1000 homes. The Council had been fortunate to secure £70
million of funding from the Combined Authority for the previous ‘500 council
homes’ programme. Would report back on further discussions she had with Homes
England regarding further funding bids.
ii.
A planning application for housing development had
been granted at Fen Road. This was one of the schemes Homes England grant
funding had been sought for. If successful, the council hoped to be begin the
development in the summer. An assessment of the need for accessible homes had
been undertaken, larger accessible homes were required. Accessible homes have
generally be provided as 1-2 bed properties.
iii.
The Executive Councillor had met with the
organisation ‘It Takes a City’ to discuss the provision of more modular homes.
It was hoped that more modular homes could be provided once appropriate land
had been identified.
iv.
Properties built through the council’s housing
development programme were built to M42 standard which meant that they could be
adapted in the future. Accessible properties tended to be 10metres larger and
therefore cost more to build. Discussions about suitable locations for modular
homes took place with Ward Councillors. Welcomed a visit with councillors
around the new developments.
v.
New housing development sites were assessed through
the planning process in accordance with the Housing Sustainable Design Guide.
This included an assessment regarding the use of water.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendation.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Claire Flowers
The Executive Councillor is recommended to: Note the contents of this report, assessing progress on the work as outlined in the report and in time for any new bids to be submitted in the budget for the following year.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 04/05/2022
Effective from: 15/03/2022
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report outlined:
·
The structure of the Council’s Residential Team,
Environmental Health, Environmental Services.
·
The work of the Residential Team in relation to
improvement of private sector rented homes within the City in Quarter 1 –
Quarter 3 2021/22 for which complete data was available.
·
The Teams Operational Plan for 2022/23 in relation
to private rented sector homes within the Environmental Health Operational
Plan.
·
Matters on the horizon in relation to the private
rented sector for 2022 / 23 and beyond including Government reform.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Noted the contents of the report, which assessed progress on
the work detailed in the report in time for any new bids to be submitted in the
budget for the following year.
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 Residential Team
Manager, Environmental Services.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Drew the committee’s attention to paragraphs
3.20-3.21 of the officer’s report. Noted a reduction in the number of
complaints in 2020 due to the pandemic but noted that an increase in the number
of complaints was encouraging as it showed residents were beginning to feel
confident about reporting complaints and that covid secure visits could now be
made. Asked why the number of complaints had increased particularly in
Petersfield, Queen Edith’s, Coleridge, and West Chesterton wards.
ii.
Noted the private rented sector had grown by 40%
based on the 2011 census data. Noted some private rented properties in
Cambridge were not well looked after and that the council would take action
where required. Asked for the report to contain a full year’s worth of
information and asked to see the last 4 years’ worth of data, including housing
complaints, breakdown of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) and data on
enforcement. Asked what ‘HMO specific’ complaints were.
iii.
Asked with reference to recommendation D what
targeted / pro-active work around HMOs looked like. Asked what anti-social
behaviour from tenants referred to. Asked whether tenants could be included in
this work. Asked if there could be a webpage explaining tenants’ rights if they
did not feel that they were living in safe accommodation. Noted that it was
mostly commercial landlords who offered short term lets and as the number of
short term let accommodation increased this reduced the housing stock
available.
iv.
Asked if the 2011 or 2021 census data would detail
whether people lived in social rented accommodation or private rented
accommodation.
v.
Asked if the housing complaints detailed on page 61
of the agenda were raised by tenants or if some were raised by neighbours or
other people in the community. Noted that some tenants may be cautious about
raising concerns / issues with the council and often relied on neighbours or
others within the community to bring complaints to the council’s attention so
that they did not get any reprisal from the landlord or the managing
agent.
vi.
Noted that student accommodation did not suit all
students for example those undertaking teacher training courses / nurses, as
these students may not be in Cambridge for the whole year. Some of these students
had ended up using Air BnBs, which was an insecure type of accommodation.
Expressed concerns regarding short-term letting accommodation.
vii.
Was keen to see the 2021 census data built into any
follow up report and commented that the September Housing Scrutiny Committee
may allow time for officers to assess this information and formulate any budget
bids to follow up actions as appropriate.
The Residential Team Manager, Environmental Services and the Housing Strategy
Manager. said the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
Believed the reduction
in the number of complaints about private sector housing was due to the
hesitancy to make complaints during the pandemic. Even when the eviction ban
was in place, felt residents were still uncertain about making complaints owing
to the perceived need for an inspection of the property and / or any reprisals
from landlords. Petersfield, Queens Edith’s, Coleridge and West Chesterton
wards had a high percentage of student housing which tended to be multiple occupied
accommodation. When tenancies changed (when students moved on) there tended to
be a heightened number of complaints.
ii.
Would discuss with the
Executive Councillor the best way to provide the additional data requested. HMO
specific complaints were complaints relating to a landlord’s failure to comply
with statutory requirements for HMOs including fire precautions and associated
management requirement for these properties.
iii.
Had undertaken data
mapping work in conjunction with Revenue and Benefits colleagues to identify
where suspected HMOs were across the city. The pro-active work would involve
inspecting un-licensed licensable HMO properties. A review of the information
available for tenants on the council’s website could be undertaken, this has
been reviewed during the pandemic in-line with associated changes to complaint
investigation procedure. The Landlord Steering Group had recently been
resurrected but it could be investigated to see if private sector tenant
representatives could be represented at this group. Acknowledged short term
lettings was a national issue. Noted that local authorities in Scotland had
been asked to administer a short term let licensing scheme. Would have to wait
and see whether England introduced a similar scheme in response to private
sector housig reform and the Levelling Up White Paper.
iv. Census data was broken down by housing tenure and included whether a
property was a council property, a housing association property, shared
ownership or if it was privately owned.
v. Generally complaints were made by tenants but issues could also be
raised by neighbours or support workers.
vi. Her team works closely with the planning enforcement team with regards
to short term let accommodation.
The Executive Councillor thanked the officer
for their report and noted that the number of comments which had been made
showed how seriously the committee took the issue. Agreed that an updated
report would be brought back to the committee in the future.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendation.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Claire Adelizzi
Approval in principle of HRA revenue carry forwards from 2021/22 into 2022/23.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 04/05/2022
Effective from: 15/03/2022
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report presented details of anticipated variances
from budgets, where resources are requested to be carried forward into the
2022/23 financial year in order to undertake or complete activities anticipated
to have taken place in 2021/22.
The position in relation to rephasing of any
investment as part of the Housing Capital Investment Plan would be reported to
Housing Scrutiny Committee in the June 2022 committee cycle, alongside final
revenue carry forward requests.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Agreed the provisional carry forward requests, totalling
£1,416,280 as detailed in the revised Appendix A, subject to the final outturn
position.
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 Head of
Finance and Business Manager.
The Assistant Head of Finance and Business Manager and the Head of Housing
Maintenance and Assets said the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
In a number of cases the carry forwards were to
complete work which had already begun under an existing contract where there
was a fixed price within the contract to complete the work. Any areas where
prices weren’t fixed were included in the budget process for 2022/23. This
included an additional amount for inflation which wasn’t allocated out to
individual expenditure heads to allow this to be allocated in-year to any areas
which were subject to higher than anticipated levels of inflation. Since this
provision was made in January, inflation has continued to increase. Resource
would be allocated accordingly to any areas where financial pressure occurred.
This would be reviewed with the budget before the Mid-Year Financial Strategy
was brought to Committee in September.
ii.
The heat and smoke detector installation delays
weren’t due to officer/contractor capacity but was due to the ability of the
council to gain access to properties. Officers were exploring other ways to
gain access to properties, which included for example seeing if works could be
undertaken at the same time as gas servicing checks.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendation.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Julia Hovells
The report provides an update on the Estates & Facilities on compliance related work within the service, including a summary on gas servicing, electrical testing and fire safety.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 04/05/2022
Effective from: 15/03/2022
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The report provided an update on the compliance
related activities delivered within the Estates & Facilities Team,
including a summary on gas servicing, electrical testing, and fire safety work.
Decision of
Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Noted
the Council’s current position regarding compliance, and the progress of
ongoing associated works
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 Property Compliance and Risk Manager.
The Head of Housing Maintenance and Assets said the following in
response to Members’ questions:
i.
The low compliance on electrical certification was
in part due to the change in time frames, the council had been working on a
10-year programme and had recently changed to a 5-year programme. There had
also been considerable issues gaining access to properties which had been
detailed in previous reports. Officers were looking to overcome access issues
by combining gas and electrical checks as the council achieved better access to
properties through gas servicing checks.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendation.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Lynn Bradley
To agreed the adoption of the Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document as amended.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 04/05/2022
Effective from: 11/01/2022
Decision:
The report
recommended that the Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) as
amended was adopted, to be used as a material consideration in planning
decisions supporting implementation of the adopted Local Plan.
Decision of the
Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport.
i.
Considered the main issues raised in the public
consultation, agreed responses to the representations received and agreed
proposed changes to the SPD as set out in the Statement of Consultation
(appendix 1 of the Officer’s report).
ii.
Agreed the adoption the amended Greater
Cambridge Biodiversity SPD (appendix 2 of the Officer’s report).
iii.
Agreed to delegate to the Joint Director of
Planning and Economic Development, in consultation with the Executive
Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, the Chair and Opposition Spokes
for the Planning Policy and Transport Scrutiny Committee, the authority to make
any necessary editing changes to the SPD prior to publication.
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 Natural Environment Team
Leader.
In response to
comments made by the Committee, the Natural Environment Team Leader, Nature
Conservation Projects Officer, Principal Planning Officer and the Joint
Director for Planning and Economic Development said the following:
i.
Noted the Committee’s positive comments on the
statutory 10% and the aspiration of 20% biodiversity.
ii.
Suggested the SPD could be reviewed at the point
of adoption of the new Local Plan; if additional guidance on biodiversity net
gain was required at this point this would be an option to explore.
iii.
One of the challenges writing the SPD had been
the changes in national legislation and guidance as the document
developed. These changes would continue
to evolve over time; therefore, it was important to note these changes and
determine if reassessment would be required as and when.
iv.
Confirmed that when scrutinising applications
against policy on both large and small sites that biodiversity was being
achieved and documented.
v.
Started to reference best practice with the
appropriate links throughout the SPD, however, it was not possible to provide
the whole spectrum of solutions that officers advised on individual
applications. This would have also increased the length of the SPD; some
feedback received during the consultation process was that the document was too
lengthy.
vi.
There was an intention to show best practice on
the relevant pages of the city council website rather than in the SPD which
meant these pages could be updated regularly.
vii.
Developments that successfully met the statutory
biodiversity had done so with collective conversations with officers and
support of the council. As this continued it would be likely the additional
ambition of biodiversity would be taken forward.
viii.
With regard to S106 and offsetting, officers
were investigating the possibility of offsite biodiversity net gain where it
was not possible to meet onsite biodiversity.
ix.
The emerging Local Plan was an opportunity to
develop and assist with infrastructure contributions towards the delivery of
green infrastructure and biodiversity net gain.
i.
Noted the comment it was important to
acknowledge the harm of biodiversity and habitat located on the perimeter of a
development site; work should be undertaken through survey data and written
into policy the protection of those areas so developers could not build on the
boundaries.
ii.
Officers were working with other local
authorities to develop best practice for long term biodiversity through clear
extended ownership and cohesive planning.
iii.
Currently there was little guidance from Central
Government on long term biodiversity.
iv.
It was critical going forward that monitoring
for sustainable quality biodiversity was in place; this would emerge from
national legislation which the department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA) were assembling. The
balance of onsite and offsite biodiversity was complex and was not without
challenges.
v.
There was best practice on biodiversity net gain
(the principles could be used when looking at offsite provision) one of which
was on good governance, this could be used as an interim while waiting for
further Government guidance.
vi.
There was no reason why the SPD could not be
used as a guide to determine if enforcement action should be taken.
vii.
Noted the request for a report on the progress
of policies and long-term net gain term biodiversity.
The Committee
The Committee
unanimously endorsed the Officers recommendations.
The Executive
Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport 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.