Decisions

Endorsement and adoption of the Fire Risk Management Strategy for CCC which will cover all council owned buildings (including council housing).

Matter for Decision

The Fire Risk Management Strategy (FRMS) set out how Cambridge City Council would implement its Fire Safety Policy. The strategy aimed to reduce the risks posed by fire through a risk based approach, supported by fire safety management processes and procedures to reduce the risk as far as reasonably practicable.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

i.      Approved the Fire Risk Management Strategy subject to the minor amendments tabled at the committee meeting.

 

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 Housing Maintenance and Assets.  A short list of amendments to the wording within the appendices was tabled which set out the fire prevention and protection measures to achieve the fire safety aim of the Fire Risk Management Strategy (additional wording underlined).

 

As stated in item 1.2 (page 67) 2.2 (Page 70) 3.2.1 (page 72) 3.3.1(page 75) 3.4.1 (page 77) 3.5.1 (page 81)

“……a carbon monoxide alarm where gas installations are present” should be read as “……a carbon monoxide alarm where open flued gas or solid fuel installations are present”

 

As stated in item 1.2 (page 68) “BS 5839:6 2013 recommends an LD3 Grade D system in existing houses and an LD2 Grade D system in new houses.” should be read as: “BS 5839:6 2013 recommends an LD3 Grade D system in existing houses and an LD2 Grade D system in new houses or when materially altered.”

 

As stated in item 3.2.1 (page 72) “BS 5839:6 2013 recommends an LD3 Grade D system in existing flats.” should be read as: “BS 5839:6 2013 recommends an LD3 Grade D system in existing flats and an LD2 Grade D when materially altered.”

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

      i.         Asked if the Fire Service had seen the strategy.

    ii.         Questioned the compartmentalisation (stay put) strategy.

   iii.         Referred to the Council’s Zero Tolerance Policy on p73 of the agenda, which dealt with means of escape and asked whether the Council would impose a blanket ban of items being placed in shared areas which were means of escape.

  iv.         Questioned how tenants could be convinced to follow a ‘stay put’ policy following the Grenfell tragedy.

    v.         Commented that the Zero Tolerance Policy had been fully debated at Housing Scrutiny Committee and alternative measures could be put in place for residents.  Gave an example in Arbury where residents used to keep bicycles in shared areas and extra bike rack provision had been provided so that bicycles did not need to be stored in shared accessible areas.

 

The Head of Housing Maintenance and Assets and the Corporate Health and Safety and Emergency Planner and said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         Confirmed the Fire Service had been consulted in developing the strategy.

    ii.         The compartmentalisation strategy complied with the British Standard. There was an assumption that a building complied with the Fire Strategy unless there was evidence to the contrary.

   iii.         Confirmed the Council owned 8 semi-detached properties which had been converted into flats.

  iv.         A zero tolerance report was brought to the Housing Scrutiny Committee in August, certain concessions had been made but the council were trying to address safety concerns and means of escape out of buildings. Understood that personal space was at a premium in a shared building but this should not be at the expense of the safety to other residents in a shared building.

    v.         Work was being undertaken with the Home Ownership Team and information was being put in the publication ‘Open Door’ to advise tenants about the ‘stay put’ policy. Commented that if members had any further ideas, officers would be happy to explore these.

 

The Executive Councillor referred to paragraph 3.8 of the officer’s report and confirmed that all Council buildings had been checked to ensure that they did not contain materials which were present in the Grenfell accommodation.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation subject to the officer’s tabled amendments.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation subject to the officer’s tabled amendments.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

The Executive Councillor said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.      It was his view that Scrutiny needed to be retained at each respective Council; the Councils would continue to work closely and jointly with each other in relation to shared services.

ii.    There were various sizes of shared services, there were medium size shared services for example Building Control and Legal services and then there were larger shared services for example Planning, Waste and Recycling and ICT and governance should be appropriate to the needs of that particular service.

iii.   Noted there was a Joint Local Planning Advisory Group (JLPAG) for the new shared Local Plan with South Cambridgeshire District Council reflecting that joint arrangements worked well where joint assessment decisions were needed.

iv.  Several shared services were still evolving, for example there was a large development workload coming up regarding ICT and Councillor Robertson would be working with officers and counterparts at the other two Councils regarding the Council’s priorities for transformation.

v.    Executive Councillors were responsible for shared services which fell within their portfolio. The Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee and other relevant Scrutiny Committees would continue to be updated on the progress of shared services and committee members would scrutinise the shared services through the presentation of the annual business plans and annual performance reports.

vi.  Noted that there was no longer a plan to share Finance and Housing Management services at this time.

vii. The City Council focussed on pre-scrutiny, the other council’s operated different scrutiny arrangements.

viii. Acknowledged work was continuing to build the Planning Service as a joint service.

 

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report set out an update on the Park Street Car Park Redevelopment Final Scheme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

      i.         Approved Officer’s recommendation

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Scrutiny Committee resolved to exclude members of the public from the meeting on the grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972

 

Following the debate members suggested amendments to the officer recommendations.

 

The Committee resolved by 3 votes to 0 to endorse the amended recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the amended recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

To note the Local Government Ombudsman case decision and recommendations and endorse the action taken by officers in response.

Matter for Decision

The LGO upheld a complaint relating to the application of the Council’s Moorings Policy.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

i.               Noted that LGO had upheld a complaint relating to an unauthorised mooring;

ii.             Noted that the Head of Legal Services as the Council’s Monitoring Officer had an obligation to report the findings to the Council

iii.            Noted that the Committee was satisfied with the action that had been taken (detailed in section 6 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 Development Manager.

 

In response to the report Councillors queried what the council had failed to do.

 

The Development Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         There were delays in the consideration of this case due to the complexity of the issues involved. The Local Government Ombudsman felt the Council did not consider the individual’s circumstances in a timely way.

 

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 Council had adopted The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA) Code of Practice on Treasury Management (Revised 2017).

 

The Code required as a minimum receipt by full Council of an Annual Treasury Management Strategy Statement which includes the Annual Investment Strategy and Minimum Revenue Provision Policy for the year ahead, a half-year review report and an Annual Report (stewardship report) covering activities in the previous year.

 

The half-year report had been prepared in accordance with CIPFA’s Code of Practice on Treasury Management and covers the following:-

 

·      The Council’s capital expenditure (prudential indicators);

·      A review of compliance with Treasury and Prudential Limits for 2019/20;

·      A review of the Council’s borrowing strategy for 2019/20;

·      A review of the Treasury Management Strategy Statement and Annual Investment Strategy;

·      A review of the Council’s investment portfolio for 2019/20; and;

·      An update on interest rate forecasts following economic news in the first half of the 2019/20 financial year.

 

In line with the Code of Practice, all treasury management reports have been presented to both Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee and to full Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources to recommend to Council to:

      i.         Approve the report which included the Council’s estimated Prudential and Treasury Indicators 2019/20 to 2022/23.

    ii.         Approve an increase in the Authorised Limit for External Debt from £300m to £400m (paragraph 5.3 of the officer’s report).

   iii.         Note the inclusion of loans to the Cambridge City Housing Company and Cambridge Investment Partnership on the Current Counterparty list shown in Appendix B 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 Head of Finance.

 

The Committee resolved by 3 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.

 

 

To agree the budget strategy and timetable for 2020/21, the net savings requirements, by year for the next 5 years, and revised General Fund revenue, funding and reserves projections.

Matter for Decision

This report presented and recommended the budget strategy for the 2020/21 budget cycle and specific implications, as outlined in the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) October 2019 document, which was attached and to be agreed.

 

This report also recommended the approval of new capital items and funding proposals for the Council’s Capital Plan, the results of which were shown in the MTFS.

 

At this stage in the 2020/21 budget process showed the range of assumptions on which the Budget-Setting Report (BSR) published in February 2019 was based need to be reviewed, in light of the latest information available, to determine whether any aspects of the strategy need to be revised. This then provides the basis for updating budgets for 2020/21 to 2024/25. All references in the recommendations to Appendices, pages and sections relate to the MTFS Version 3.0.

 

The recommended budget strategy was based on the outcome of the review undertaken together with financial modelling and projections of the Council’s expenditure and resources, in the light of local policies and priorities, national policy and economic context. Service managers had identified financial and budget issues and pressures and this information had been used to inform the MTFS.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources to recommend to Council to:

 

i.               Agree the budget strategy and timetable as outlined in Section 1 [pages 5 to 7 refer] of the MTFS document.

ii.             Agree the incorporation of changed assumptions and indicative net unavoidable budget pressures identified in Section 4 [pages 20 to 22 refer]. This provides an indication of the net savings requirement, by year for the next five years, and revised projections for General Fund (GF) revenue and funding as shown in Section 5 [page 23 refer] and reserves [section 7 pages 30 to 33 refer] of the MTFS document.

iii.            Note the changes to the capital plan as set out in Section 6 [pages 24 to 29 refer] and Appendix A [pages 37 to 41 refer] of the MTFS document and agree the new proposals.

Ref	Description/ £’000s	19/20	20/21	21/22	22/23	23/24	24/25	Total
SC646	Redevelopment of Cambridge Junction	250						250
SC658	CCTV infrastructure – additional cost	75						75
SC691	HR and payroll – new system	20	150					170
SC699	Corn Exchange fire doors	37						37
SC672	Mill Road redevelopment – development loan to CIP		1,142					1,142
SC695	Cromwell Road redevelopment – equity contribution		329	333				662
SC696	Cromwell Road redevelopment loan to CIP	2,376	5,481	1,000				8,857
SC701	Dales Brewery – replacement fire alarm system	24						24
	Total Proposals	2,782	7,102	1,333				11,217

 

iv.           Agree changes to General Fund reserve levels, the prudent minimum balance being set at £5.51m and the target level at £6.61m as detailed in section 7 [pages 30 to 33 refer] and Appendix B [pages 42 and 43 refer] of the MTFS document.

 

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 Finance.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

      i.         Noted an ambitious capital programme and questioned whether there were adequate staffing levels to deliver the services.

    ii.         Questioned if the Executive Councillor had a view on the increase in the amount of the Council’s reserves.

   iii.         Referred to p171 of the agenda and noted that this was the second time that savings from shared services would not be realised.  Asked about the progress of shared services.

  iv.         Referred to savings requirements on p183 of the agenda and asked if the figures were abstract estimates or based on factors from the current situation.

    v.         Referred to page 177 of the agenda and queried if the New Homes Bonus was being used to fund officers supporting growth eg: within the Planning Service. 

 

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

      i.         There had been an increase in reserves through underspending and growth in the business rates revenue. Reserves were seen as contingency funds. There was a high level of uncertainty with the local government funding settlement, reserves would provide some flexibility for funding.

    ii.         Referred to comments raised in relating to savings targets on p183 of the agenda, these were realistic targets of unavoidable pressures based on an average officers believed to be realistic.

   iii.         Commented that it was likely that the New Homes Bonus was likely to disappear in the next 4-5 years and funding would be distributed in another way.  

 

The Executive Councillor said the following in response to Members’ questions:

    i.           Referred to p198-201 of the committee agenda and commented that there were too many specific projects. He acknowledged there had been some delays finalising some projects. Noted that there was some s106 funding which needed to be spent otherwise there was a requirement to return the funding back to developers. Noted there were items where the council was waiting to obtain funding from external agencies. Commented that the Council had staff who were capable of delivering projects but that sometimes there were issues beyond the Council’s control which prevented projects going ahead.

  ii.           Savings had been achieved for Shared Services through management restructures.  Shared Services overheads needed to be looked at.

 

The Committee resolved by 3 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.

 

 

To approve a capital budget following completion of an OJEU procurement for the appointment of a Lead Designer and multi-disciplinary team to complete i) A RIBA Stage 1 design report for the redevelopment of Cambridge Junction to provide additional venue facilities and work space ii) A RIBA stage 1 site wide master plan and report which identifies commercial opportunities in addition to the venue redevelopment.

Cambridge Junction would like to replace Junction 1 (which has lifecycle issues), and expand the arts and cultural venue with additional event, studio, work and office spaces with a vertical redevelopment scheme on this site. Cambridge City Council would like to further explore the potential of the Cambridge Junction site for additional commercial capital development including a potential partnership with Cambridge Junction CDC to assist their future financial sustainability.

The team will be contracted to complete RIBA stage 1 work in order to submit an application for the next Capital funding round to be launched by Arts Council England (ACE) in April 2020. If successful, ACE will then fund RIBA stage 2-5 works.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report set out a proposal regarding Cambridge Junction Redevelopment RIBA Stage 1 works.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

      i.         Approved Officer’s recommendation

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Scrutiny Committee resolved by 3 votes to 0 to exclude members of the public from the meeting on the grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972

 

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 Officer’s report provided an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority since the 1 July Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships

i.      Noted the update provided on issues considered at the meetings of the Combined Authority held on the 31 July and 25 September 2019.

 

Following the meeting the Executive Councillor confirmed the following appointments to the Combined Authority Committees:

·      Skills Committee – Cllr Davey, (Cllr Sargeant Substitute)

·      Housing Committee – Cllr Sargeant (Cllr Davey Substitute)

·      Transport Committee – Cllr Massey (Cllr Sargeant Substitute)

·      Confirmed a change to the Labour substitute member for the Overview and Scrutiny committee from Cllr Davey to Cllr McQueen.

 

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 Chief Executive.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

      i.         Questioned how well the constituent Councils in the Combined Authority worked together.

    ii.         The Combined Authority’s economic review referred to 3 discreet economic sub-regions, which did not coincide with local authority boundaries.  For example the Greater Cambridgeshire economic review would include areas which fell under East Cambridgeshire District Council’s local authority area. 

 

The Executive Councillor said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         The Combined Authority could work better with the constituent Councils.

    ii.         There needed to be greater strategic focus on the southern part of Cambridgeshire as a defined economic zone, both to our benefit as a city and to maximise benefits for the wider adjacent area.   Work under the Local Enterprise Partnership didn’t take Greater Cambridgeshire seriously enough in the past. The Combined Authority Local Industrial Strategy was a big step forward and looked at planning, sustainability, jobs, housing etc. East Cambridgeshire District Council had been originally invited to play a greater part in the Greater Cambridge Partnership (previously City Deal) but declined to do so at the time.  

 

The Chief Executive commented that the Combined Authority had taken a pragmatic approach when creating the economic sub-regions.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to note the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor noted 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 of Public Art Commissioning Strategy.

Matter for Decision

Over the last couple of years, public art reports to this committee have taken a two-pronged approach, focussed on the following:

       i.          Developing a Public Art Strategy, which includes proposing a framework and associated principles new public art commissions; and

     ii.          Bringing forward a few public art commissions prior to the development of the Public Art Strategy, in order to make effective and timely use of existing time-limited S106 contributions.

 

While progress continues to be made on developing the Public Art Strategy, research and advice received from external public art specialists has underlined the need to work closely with the shared Planning Service as it reviews related planning policies. Officers aim to report back on the Strategy in the first half of 2020/21.

 

In the meantime, this latest report provided updates, which had been scheduled for this committee meeting:

       i.          The need to commission a public art project in/ around Trumpington ward’s boundary with Petersfield and Coleridge.

     ii.          The need to take stock of the River Cam public art programme.

   iii.          Other proposals that could be developed ahead of the development of the Public Art Strategy.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Agreed to:

       i.          Allocate up to £90,000 of S106 public art contributions to develop the ‘Art of Play public art project in accordance with the outline brief in Appendix A of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          De-allocate £330,000 of public art S106 contributions currently allocated to the River Cam public art programme;

   iii.          Instruct officers to develop proposals for the following projects and report back to this Committee in 2020/21, so that the project proposals and associated s106 funding allocations can be considered:

a.    A public art project in/around Trumpington ward’s boundary with Petersfield and Coleridge, using up to £75,000 of time limited, local s106 contributions (if these cannot be related to the ‘Art of Play’ public art project);

b.    A public art project in Romsey ward using time-limited public art S106 contributions that have to be contractually committed during 2023; and

c.    A city-wide urban art project and associated urban art space at Newmarket Road roundabout subway, in accordance with the concept proposal in Appendix C 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 Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager.

 

In response to the report Councillors asked if the council used outside agencies for public art instead of in-house providers. The Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager said there were a number of providers who the council used as consultants.

 

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.

Approve proposals to improve the pool and facilities.

Matter for Decision

A range of investigatory work was being undertaken at the Jesus Green Lido to consider current issues, future requirements and options to achieve these. This includes investigative work and structural assessment of the current buildings and pool tank along with potential investments required to maintain them for either their continued use or provide replacement facilities.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

       i.          Approved the phased approach outlined in this report to implement short term and consider longer term improvements to Jesus Green Lido.

     ii.          Approved, subject to business case approval, the use of all remaining S106 developer contributions collected under the ‘swimming pool’ contribution type for eligible improvements at Jesus Green Lido proposed in this report. This includes unallocated swimming pool S106 contributions already received and those received in future.

   iii.          Agreed to de-allocate £250,000 of generic S106 contributions from the Jesus Green Rouse Ball Pavilion project, so that these funds can, instead, be made available for other projects to mitigate the impact of development in Cambridge (that is, £125,000 back to community facilities S106 funds and £125,000 back to outdoor sports S106 funds).

 

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 Sport & Recreation Manager.

 

The Sport & Recreation Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          Phase 1 will continue and not be reported back to committee. Anything concerning phase 2 would come back to committee for consideration.

     ii.          Project phase two: Officers would liaise with stakeholders to identify possible options and additional investments to improve the facility, and considered as part of the new leisure contract offer from October 2023 onwards. Any future proposals would also require approval from both elected members and planning permissions.

 

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.

Agree updated strategies for indoor and outdoor sports, and updated action plan listings for potential investment of S106 developer contributions across the City into facilities.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report provided an update on the Playing Pitch and Indoor Sport Strategies action plans for the City, which were adopted in June 2016.

 

The strategies include action plans which have been updated to reflect completed works to date, and prioritisation of identified project areas, along with the addition of new opportunities for investment to include Tennis, Bowls, Rowing and Canoeing, to be included for consideration for funding from existing and future S106 Developer Contributions or Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding for Outdoor, Indoor and Swimming funds.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

       i.          Approved the updated project lists in appendices 1 and 2 of the Officer’s report to for Indoor and Outdoor Sports projects for inclusion into the City’s Playing Pitch and Indoor Sport Strategies for potential investment as strategic project areas for use of Indoor and Outdoor S106/CIL Developer Contributions.

     ii.          Adopted Tennis and Bowls projects listed in appendices 3 & 4 of the Officer’s report for inclusion into the indoor sport and playing pitch strategies for potential investment as strategic project areas for use of Indoor and Outdoor S106/CIL Developer contributions.

   iii.          Adopted Rowing and Canoeing projects listed in appendix 5 of the Officer’s report for inclusion into the Playing Pitch Strategy for potential investment as strategic project areas for use of Outdoor S106/CIL Developer contributions.

 

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 Community, Sport & Recreation Manager.

 

The Community, Sport & Recreation Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions

       i.          Community use agreements were wide ranging to encourage the public to participate in sports at the centres, and include a provision for meetings with the centres management teams to monitor progress, accessibility and usage of the public sessions at their sites.

     ii.          Multi-use game areas in the city can facilitate volley ball, but most sessions are played indoors. In the summer temporary courts are setup mainly by the language schools & colleges for informal games in the open spaces such as Parkers Piece, but there are no permanently marked grass courts at present.

   iii.          The Council worked with different partners to encourage the public to access different sports facilities, and now negotiate a range of times too, with Netherhall Sports Centre facilitating Exercise Referral sessions at the new Gym during school hours.

   iv.          S106 agreements all included triggers when developers should pay over the sporting contributions if the developments go ahead, and range from levels of occupation of completed units to “upon commencement” terms.

 

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 Officer’s report provided an update on progress during 2018/19 on actions to deliver the five objectives of the City Council’s Climate Change Strategy 2016-21. As part of this, the report includes an update on progress in implementing the Council’s Carbon Management Plan which details the actions the Council will take to reduce carbon emissions from its estate and operations.

 

The report also provided an update on: 

       i.          The current position of the Climate Change Fund, which provides support to projects that help to reduce the Council’s own carbon emissions and/or manage climate change risks to Council staff and property.

     ii.          The council’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2018/19.

   iii.          A proposed response to Shepreth Wildlife Park’s Plastics Pledge

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Change,

Environment and City Centre

       i.          Noted the progress achieved during 2018/19 in implementing the actions in the Climate Change Strategy and Carbon Management Plan.

     ii.          Approved the proposed response to Shepreth Wildlife Park’s Plastic Pledge (as set out at Appendix E 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 Strategy and Partnerships Manager.

 

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

       i.          Ward clean up days were run by the Shared Waste Service and Housing Service. There were a number of clean up days run across the city over the year. Undertook to liaise with these services to ascertain if more clean up days could be offered.

     ii.          Will follow up if participating in the 50 Fountains Challenge is practicable.

   iii.          The Council delivered or funded a number of activities in 2018/19 to encourage and support Council staff, residents and businesses to reduce single-use plastics such as promoting the 100 plus drinking water taps in Cambridge which can be found on the Refill app, including free drinking taps and fountains such as the new one installed by the Council on Parkers Piece.

   iv.          The council has a target to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from its estate and vehicle fleet by 15% by 2021, with an aspiration to achieve a 20% reduction by this date. The council had implemented a number of carbon reduction projects (see Officer’s report for details) as set out in the Carbon Management Plan. Officers were actively pursuing carbon reduction across the estate and vehicle fleet.

    v.          In March 2016, the Council set an aspiration for the city of Cambridge to achieve zero carbon status by 2050. The UK Government’s new national target is in-line with this, as is the most recent advice from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the UK’s Committee on Climate Change. In February 2019, the Council had called upon the Government to give the Council and other local partners the powers needed to make Cambridge zero carbon by 2030.

   vi.          Undertook to find out more details for Councillors about advertising and promotion of the new car club scheme jointly with Cambridgeshire County Council, which allows residents to hire vehicles for short periods, reducing the need for car-ownership.

 vii.          The Council has increased cycle parking provision, by providing 55 new stands with 110 parking spaces across a number of sites. This included2 cargo bike parking bays at Queen Anne Terrace car park. Undertook to find out more details for Councillors regarding scope for more cargo bike spaces in 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.

To adopt the report as the stated policy of the City Council in relation to implementing a Clean Air Zone or Low Emission Zone.

Public Question

Councillor Bick addressed the committee as a Ward Councillor and Greater Cambridgeshire Partnership representative.

       i.          Welcomed the Officer’s report. Hoped this would encourage Greater Cambridgeshire Partnership to develop a long term strategy to address issues.

     ii.          Agreed it is a priority to apply the clean air zone to Class A vehicles as they were needed to service the city so had to be ‘clean’.

   iii.          Other cities had imposed clean air zones.

   iv.          Queried if the clean air zone would apply to delivery vehicles in future.

    v.          Agreed the clean air zone should not be applied to private motor vehicles yet. Public realm improvements, road safety and congestion needed to be reviewed in future. A way to reduce the number of vehicles on the road would be welcome (instead of changing ‘polluting’ vehicles to ‘clean’ without reducing the overall number).

 

The Executive Councillor responded:

       i.          The City Council was responsible for clean air, but Greater Cambridgeshire Partnership had the power to actually take action on this and mitigating congestion.

     ii.          The City Council was working with Greater Cambridgeshire Partnership to influence them.

 

Matter for Decision

The report set out below aims to acknowledge the work done to date and to reiterate the City Councils on-going support for a significant transport intervention to cut road traffic emissions and improve air quality.

 

In acknowledging the findings of the Greater Cambridgeshire Partnership funded Clean Air Zone Feasibility Study, delivered by the City Council in February 2019, the Council seeks to reinforce the key findings and recommendations.

 

Officers would like note the importance of the on-going independent Citizens’ Assembly organised to help inform any transport interventions to be taken forward by the Greater Cambridgeshire Partnership.

 

The combination of a significant technical evidence base supporting an intervention to curb road traffic emissions and a robust independent, representative view of potential interventions from the Citizens’ Assembly should lead to a comprehensive proposal for a package of measures to be considered by the Greater Cambridgeshire Partnership board in December 2019.

 

The City Council will work with the Greater Cambridgeshire Partnership to support such a package of measures to include actions to significantly improve air quality in the City for the medium and long term.

 

The City council also notes the recent public commitment by all the UK major bus operators to ‘Only purchase next generation ultra-low or zero emissions buses from 2025 (but starting this process by 2023 in some urban areas’.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Change,

Environment and City Centre

Agreed to:

       i.          Support the contents of the Cambridge Clean Air Zone (CAZ) feasibility study and its key finding that:

 

‘Without intervention and with the expected doubling of the bus fleet, there is a risk that the air quality in Cambridge will not improve over the next decade.’

 

     ii.          Support the key recommendations of the CAZ feasibility study, namely,

a.    Without intervention and with the expected doubling of the bus fleet, there is a risk that the air quality in Cambridge will not improve over the next decade. Air pollution accounts for 106 deaths each year in Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire.

b.    The most effective interventions are those focussed on improving the whole bus fleet to cleaner vehicles through a charging Clean Air Zone ‘Class A’ (all buses and coaches to be Euro 6, diesel taxis to be Euro 6 and petrol taxis to be Euro 4). This would deliver compliance with the limit value for Nitrogen Dioxide (NO₂) across most of the city in 2021.

c.    The most effective intervention to improve air quality and protect public health in the long term is a charging `Class D’ Clean Air Zone which includes all vehicles. Improvement in the bus fleet should be a priority due to their large contribution to emissions. It is recommended that focus is given to improvement in the vehicle fleet within the city centre area by 2021. It is expected that the implementation of a Clean Air Zone would take approximately 18 months.

d.     By 2031, reductions in concentrations across the whole of Cambridge will bring further public health benefits. Introducing a more ambitious charging CAZ (including light goods vehicles, buses and coaches to be ‘Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) or ‘ Ultra Low Emission Vehicles (ULEV)) is predicted to reduce NO₂ levels to below 80% of the air quality objectives across Cambridge; it is recommended that this option is pursued.

 

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.

 

In response to the report Councillors commented that parents left their vehicle engines idling outside schools whilst waiting for children. Queried actions being taken to address this.

 

The Environmental Quality & Growth Manager said:

       i.          The issue was being reviewed.

     ii.          The County Council and schools were trialing a no-idling zone outside two schools in 2020. The impact would be monitored. Various schools had volunteered for the trial.

   iii.          Street management was the responsibility of the transport authority (Highways Authority).

 

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

Moving to a future where electric vehicles are the norm, presents many challenges both technical and social and as a lower tier authority Cambridge City Council only has control over some aspects of the transition.

 

Key areas where we can act and those where we are taking action are identified in the Electric Vehicle and Infrastructure Strategy document and include Taxi Licencing; Fleet; Planning; and the management and operation of our car parks and housing developments.

 

The document sets out the approach of Cambridge City Council in identifying those areas where we can take a lead and where funding opportunities exist. Where opportunities for grant-funding exist, and the City Council is the appropriate lead, we will pursue that funding.

 

Where there is an obvious need to provide infrastructure on a commercial basis e.g. within our car parking asset, the aim is to engage the market and find a financially manageable solution.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Change,

Environment and City Centre

       i.          Acknowledged both the opportunities, and limitations of Cambridge City Councils role in supporting the transition to Electric Vehicles as set out in the appended Electric Vehicle and Infrastructure Strategy.

     ii.          Endorsed the recommended strategic approach notably:

a.    The key areas for action within Cambridge City Council (Car parks, Taxi licencing, planning policy, commercial property and Housing.)

b.    Identification of Government, public and commercial sources of funding; and

c.    Working in partnership with other relevant authorities (County Council, Other Districts, Greater Cambridge Partnership, the Combined Authority to identify and deliver electric vehicle support in areas where it is appropriate for others to take the lead.

 

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 Environmental Quality & Growth Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The purpose of the strategy was to set out how many officers/organisations were involved in projects and who could do what.

     ii.          The strategy set out performance indicators the council had signed up to. The aim was to match projects against funding available. The document was not ‘fixed’, metrics could be developed/amended in future as the Electric Vehicle and Infrastructure project developed.

   iii.          A fleet review was being undertaken. The aim was to replace a significant number of vehicles with electric ones. A framework was being put together for a cost/benefit analysis.

 

The Executive Councillor said vehicles would be replaced by electric ones where practicable at the end of their working life.

 

   iv.          The council was trying to facilitate car club spaces with charging points for electric vehicles with partners. There were a number of schemes where this was being championed.

    v.          The City Council were looking to liaise with other councils to learn from their experience. The Environmental Quality & Growth Manager had already liaised with Dundee and Oxford.

   vi.          Owner/occupiers could install charging points on their driveways etc. These were harder to install on-street as the Highways Authority managed the highway. Drivers could access rapid charge points at petrol stations.

 vii.          Referred to details in the Officer’s report concerning the electrification of the Stagecoach bus fleet. This was not the responsibility of the City Council, but the Greater Cambridge Partnership had some influence. There was a statement of intent in the report that diesel buses would be replaced with electric ones.

 

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 review the findings and consider any recommendations arising from the independent review.

 

Matter for Decision

Following the decisions taken by this Council, and by Cambridge Live, to end the contract for services with Cambridge Live, and transfer all its staff and undertakings to Cambridge City Council, a review was commissioned into the events that led to this point.

 

A review has now been conducted by an industry expert, Mark Taylor, on behalf of the East of England Local Government Association.

 

The review reported on an investigation into events that are seen very differently from different viewpoints, and finds that both the Council and Cambridge Live could have acted differently at key points, in ways that might have increased the chances of the independent trust developing into a successful and viable entity for the long-term. It highlights the learning from other trusts, in particular that the first five years at least of a new trust are often difficult, and that establishing a trust with an intention of achieving savings is unlikely to create a sustainable basis from which to build a thriving organisation.

 

The intent of the report is not to cast blame on any individual or organisation, but to highlight areas where lessons can be learned, which might be valuable in managing other arms-length relationships, or in any future decision to create an arms-length trust.

 

The review has the benefit not only of hindsight into what happened, but also of the passing of time in respect of other organisations, to give a different view on trust formation from that which was taken at the time of the trust’s formation.

 

This review did not examine in depth the financial position of Cambridge Live. Members will be informed separately when the auditors complete the accounts for the trust, on the balance sheet at the point of transfer.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Noted the report, and to ask officers to consider how the learning might best be applied to current and future relationships.

 

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 Director.

 

The Committee noted the report referred to “An unnecessary and unhelpful hostility was allowed to build up between the two organisations”. (Cambridge Live and the City Council.) Queried why did this happen and could it have been avoided.

 

The Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          Part of the Cambridge Live role was to seek private sector sponsorship. The City Council will seek sponsorship in future.

     ii.          The report said there were some difficult relationships between Cambridge Live and the City Council. Officers tried to make the relationship work. Other arms-length organisations reported the same issue.

 

The Chief executive said the two organisations were trying to establish their own identities (when Cambridge Live was set up) so needed to recalibrate their relationship. She was not aware of any issues at the time but the report said there was a difficult relationship.

 

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

       i.          The report summarised the performance of the 3Cs Building Control Shared Service and the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service during 2018/19.

 

     ii.          The principle of producing a single annual report for both the 3Cs and Greater Cambridge (2Cs) shared services was agreed at committee in July 2015.

 

   iii.          The overarching Annual Report for the 3Cs Shared Services, submitted to South Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire District Council Committees for scrutiny, includes ICT, Legal and Building Control Shared Services. At the City Council, only the Building Control service falls under the remit of this Committee, and therefore the annual report is extracted from the overarching report and enclosed below.

 

   iv.          Greater Cambridge Shared Services Annual Report covers the Waste, Planning and Internal Audit services, and is submitted to the South Cambridgeshire District Council Committee for scrutiny, but at the City Council only the Planning Shared Service falls under this Committee’s remit and therefore the service report had been extracted and was included below.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces

 

       i.          Noted the content of the report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Building Control.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Stated that the service could be seen as a success story.

     ii.          Welcomed initiates being investigated to make roles within the service more attractive and to aid staff recruitment and retention. 

 

The Head of Building Control stated the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The surplus in the budget was the result of improvement in the fee earning stream for this year and resulted in an increase in deferred income.

     ii.          Clarified what the Building Control Services Key Performance Indicator’s covered. These included the following: national targets, response times, determination targets, customer satisfaction and commercially sensitive targets.

 

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.

Following the recent call for proposals for the 2019 S106 funding round, to assess which proposals received for improving play areas and open spaces meet the S106 selection criteria and to identify which ones should be allocated funding (subject to appropriate conditions) from the relevant S106 contributions available.

Public Speakers

Catherine Rowland and Linda Frost addressed the Committee in support of the Consort Way play area boundary fencing and made the following comments:

 

·       Spine Road traffic was fast moving.

·       An unfenced play area left children vulnerable to moving vehicles.

·       Signage in the area was inadequate and did not prevent dogs or cyclists from using the area.

·       Older children use the play area to play football.

·       30mph signs had recently been erected in the area and local people were current engaged in getting this reduced to 20mph.

·       Fencing was needed urgently to prevent an accident.

 

Executive Councillor Response:

 

Councillor Thornburrow thanked the speakers for their comments and undertook to ask the County Council for their comments. She would also ask officers to consider this item as a priority.

 

Matter for Decision

The Council uses S106 contributions paid by developers to mitigate the impact of developments on facilities and amenities in Cambridge. In line with the arrangements agreed by the Executive Councillor in March 2019, the Council had invited proposals for improving play areas and open spaces within the city as part of its 2019 S106 funding round. Thirty applications had been received and assessed against the S106 selection criteria. The report summarised those applications and assessments and made 17 recommendations for S106 funding.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces

 

Resolved:

       i.          to allocate S106 funding to the following projects, subject to business case approval (see Section 4 and Appendix A of the Officers report for project details).

 

		S106 funding types
	Project	Play provision	Informal open space
N01	Logan’s Meadow: provide more benches and bins	-	£7.5k
N02	Bramblefields local nature reserve: more planting	-	£7.5k
N05	Arbury Court play area improvements (landscaping & equipment)	£15k	£15k
N07	Jubilee Gardens: improved access, landscaping, planting and seating	-	£40k
N08	Chestnut Grove Play Area: benches and bins	-	£7.5k
E07	Robert May Close play area: new play equipment and the replacement of two park benches	£5k	£35k
S01	Cherry Hinton Hall play area improvements: including accessible play equipment, plus landscaping	£90k	£60k
S02	Holbrook Road play area improvements (additional equipment and extra bench)	£46k	£1k
S03	Nightingale Avenue Rec Ground: new all-weather footpath between car park and community garden	-	£15k
S05	Consort Way play area (Trumpington Meadows): boundary fencing	-	£30k
WC1	Jesus Green ditch: landscaping and biodiversity improvements	-	£53k
WC2	Jesus Green: new wildflower meadow	-	£18k
WC3	Jesus Green: ecological/ educational space	-	£7k
WC4	Jesus Green barbecue area (and associated signage) plus drinking water fountain	-	£12.5k
WC5	Midsummer Common Community Orchard: drinking water fountain	-	£2.5k
WC6	Sheep’s Green local nature reserve: biodiversity bank improvements at Mill Pond	-	£22k
X01	Biodiversity enhancements (e.g. ‘Bee banks’) at parks in in East Chesterton, Coleridge, Trumpington & Market	-	£5k
E01	Thorpe Way Rec Ground: new footpath		£15k
S04	Nightingale Avenue Rec community garden: accessible polytunnel		£1.5k

 

 

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 Development Manager.

 

The Development Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The needs of elderly residents would be considered when benches were installed in Logan’s Meadow and other sites and benches with arms would be used where possible.

     ii.          Wheelchair user’s needs would be taken into account when drinking water facilities were installed.

   iii.          The budget allocation for the water fountain included wider costs such as officer time and any consultation work needed.

   iv.          Confirmed that lighting costs had been removed from a number of projects as S106 funding could only be used for capital cost and not on-going maintenance or utilities charges. This could be reconsidered at a later date for other funding sources.

    v.          Requests for litter bins that had been unsuccessful could be directed to alternative funding streams such as the next round of Environmental Improvement Projects.

   vi.          Confirmed that the definition of Informal Open Spaces for S106 purposes related to soft landscaping. Public Realm funding might be available for hard surfaces areas.

 vii.          Confirmed that the S106 pot was diminishing and that officers were endeavouring to make the most positive contribution with the reduced funds.

 

Members were disappointed that the £50,000 Informal Open Spaces funding for Chesterton Recreation Ground was being withdrawn. Officer’s confirmed that the funding for this project was not time sensitive and suggested deleting this recommendation to allow further consultation work to be completed.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to delete recommendation (i)

De-allocate £50,000 of informal open space S106 funding for previously prioritised project for a skate park at Chesterton Recreation Ground (see paragraph 3.9);

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation (ii):

to allocate S106 funding to the following projects, subject to business case approval (see Section 4 and Appendix A of the Officers report for project details).

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.

The report seeks approval for the joint Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Statement of Community Involvement to be adopted by the Council.

Matter for Decision

       i.          The report presented the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) for adoption following the conclusion of public consultation. The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2017, state that LPAs in England must review their SCI every five years to ensure it is up to date and reflects current legislation and best practice. The SCI has been prepared to ensure that the LPAs are in accordance with this regulatory requirement.

 

     ii.          In the context of the Greater Cambridge area, the new SCI sets out how Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Councils as part of the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning service will consult on planning policy documents and planning applications, ensuring that the two councils are consistent in their approach to engagement with local communities. The SCI would replace the adopted SCI of Cambridge City Council (2013) and South Cambridgeshire District Council (2010).

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces

 

       i.          Resolved to adopt the Statement of Community Involvement (2019) for Greater Cambridge, prepared jointly with South Cambridgeshire District Council.

 

     ii.          Agreed that the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development is granted delegated authority, in liaison with the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces, and the Chair and Spokes for the Planning Policy and Transport Scrutiny Committee, to make any editing changes 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 Senior Planning Policy Officer.

 

In response to the report, councillors commented that more clarity was needed regarding Section 2.2 of the document. The public needed to understand the engagement process. The Senior Planning Policy Officer undertook to discuss this further with the Executive Councillor outside the meeting.

 

Councillor Green suggested that Cambridge University had offered to provide training and support to members of the public on how best to engage with the planning process.

 

The Senior Planning Policy Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          Confirmed that this Committee had seen an earlier draft of the document and suggested that it would be difficult to make anything more than minor changes as this would require further consultation.

     ii.          Confirmed that the statement regarding Councillor call-in of a planning application had been kept at a high level as this was a joint policy and engagement details varied across the authorities.

   iii.          Agreed to add links to the document to direct the public to further information on engagement.

   iv.          Confirmed that a commitment had been made to simplify the planning idox system as members of the public had found it confusing.

 

Councillors sought clarification regarding the area of public notification of planning application and questioned how proposed savings would be achieved. Members sought an assurance that there was no intention to reduce existing service levels regarding public notification. Officers undertook to circulate full details of notification areas outside the meeting.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 1 and 2 abstentions 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 draft Greater Cambridge Sustainable Design and Construction SPD and to agree that it be made available for public consultation.

Matter for Decision

       i.          The report presented the draft Greater Cambridge Sustainable Design and Construction Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for consultation purposes.   The SPD was being prepared to provide guidance on the implementation of policies related to climate change and sustainable design and construction within the adopted Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire Local Plans in order to support the Greater Cambridge growth agenda and delivery of sustainable development. 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces

 

Resolved:

 

     i.            To agree the draft Greater Cambridge Sustainable Design and Construction SPD (attached at Appendix 1 to the Officer’s report)  for consultation purposes;

   ii.            that the consultation period will take place between Monday 15 July and Monday 23 September 2019;

 iii.            that the Joint Director of Planning and Economic

Development be granted delegated authority, in liaison with the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces, and the Chair and Spokes for the Planning Policy and Transport Scrutiny Committee, to make any editing changes to the draft SPD and supporting documents prior to publication and to agree the Statement and Consultation and draft Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and draft Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA) Screenings Reports for consultation alongside the draft SPD, including with the three statutory bodies.

 

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 Sustainability Officer.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Members expressed regret that national policy frustrated local ambition to deliver higher standards of sustainable development.

     ii.          Suggested that the consultation documents should be sent to local voluntary groups including Camsight.

 

The Senior Sustainability Officers stated the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The report would return to this Committee in January for adoption following the consultation period.

     ii.          The introduction to the document addresses the integration of sustainability considerations into the design of new developments from the outset, with reference to the RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) works plan.

   iii.          The SPD concentrates on the built environment with wider environmental concerns being addressed elsewhere.

   iv.          Policy 30 would not apply to extensions built under permitted development rights. However, there was a possibility that this could be covered under building regulations at a future date.

    v.          A ‘Forword’ would be added to the document at a later stage and this would set out the Council’s ambition to encourage exemplar applications.

   vi.          Confirmed that the document would add weight to the Local Plan and would influence the next Local Plan.

 vii.          The proposals had been subjected to viability assessments. However, it was acknowledged that these might be challenged by developers.

viii.          Confirmed that Equality Impact Assessments had been included in the documentation.

   ix.          Suggested that the document would not be considered a material consideration until formally adopted but that it would gain weight to decision making process the nearer it came to adoption.

 

The Planning Policy Manager stated the following in response to Members’ questions:

         i.          The SPD would supplement the adopted Local Plan which includes a wider commitment to sustainability in future joint Local Plans.

 

Councillor Hipkin stated that he felt that the discussion on this very important document had been cut short and that he had not been able to ask all of his questions.  The Chair stated that he had not seen the Councillor indicate his wish to speak and invited him to ask his final questions before moving to the vote.

 

Councillor Hipkin stated the following:

         i.          Enforcement would be problematic given staffing constraints.

       ii.          Asked if the environmental standards delivered on the University development at Eddington could be required elsewhere.

     iii.          Suggested that the Council, in its role as a developer, should be exemplar and should deliver to the same standard as that achieved by the University.

 

The Senior Sustainability Officers responded. Requirements for Eddington had been based on a national policy document that was no longer available. The Planning Inspector had removed some of the more challenging standards from the Local Plan.

 

The Strategic Director accepted that Eddington was an outstanding scheme but stated that due to the very high costs, it was not accessible to many people. The Council needed to deliver viable accommodation for local people.

 

The Executive Councillor thanked the Committee for their thorough debate on this item which would be relevant to the next Local Plan.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the amended 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.

(i) Recommend to Council to approve carry forward requests for revenue funding from 2018/19 to 2019/20, if appropriate, as detailed in report appendix.
(ii) Recommend to Council to approve capital funding rephasing from 2018/19 to 2019/20, where relevant, as detailed in report appendix.

Matter for Decision

 

The report presented, for the Planning Policy & Transport Portfolio:

 

       i.          A summary of actual income and expenditure compared to the final budget for 2018/19 (outturn position)

 

     ii.          Revenue and capital budget variances with explanations

 

   iii.          Specific requests to carry forward funding available from budget underspends into 2019/20.

 

The report was for the 2018/19 outturn the services that were included in the Planning Policy & Transport Portfolio prior to the current year committee restructure was detailed.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Open Spaces

 

Resolved: To agree to request that the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources, at the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee on 1 July 2019, approved the following:

 

       i.          Carry forward requests of £995k capital resources from 2018/19 to 2019/20 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D of the Officers 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 Caroline Ryba, Head of Finance.

 

In response to the report Councillors commented that the figures provided did not allow members to judge how the Parking Service was performing. Variances appeared to be high against the forecast. The Strategic Director undertook to address this outside the meeting.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Suggested that the Taxi Card Scheme and other transport subsidies should be promoted more widely.

     ii.          Stated that the Planning Service was under stress which in turn placed additional stress on the scrutiny and decision process.

 

The Strategic Director, the Head of Finance and the Greater Cambridge Planning Service Planning Policy Manager responded to Members’ questions as follows:

       i.          Agreed that it was disappointing that little progress had been made on the Cycleways projects (100019-PV007). Delivery of the project was dependent on the County Council delivering element of the scheme. Noted Members support for this budget item and its retention in the budget.

     ii.          Confirmed that only half the Taxi Card budget had been allocated and suggested that as a demand led service, accurate forecasting was difficult. The service was under review and caution was needed with any additional promotion.

   iii.          Confirmed that work was on-going to improve the income shortfall, income pattern and the shared service profile.

   iv.          Suggested that recruitment difficulties were a national problem and confirmed that a range of options were under consideration, such as, development of existing staff and apprentices.

    v.          Agreed that losing staff to the private sector was an on-going problem for the service.

 

Councillor Bick stated that it was regrettable that the Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety had not been in attendance to hear the debate on transport related issues.

 

The Committee resolved by 8 votes to 0 and 1 abstention 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.

The Housing Scrutiny Committee undertook a public interest test and resolved by 4 votes to 3 to exclude members of the public from the meeting on the grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraphs 1 & 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

Matter for Decision

 

The report outlined a long term empty property which had been unoccupied for 6 months or more and as such further action by the Council was required to bring it back into use.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

 

i.        Approved the Compulsory Purchase powers pursuant to Section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 in respect of in respect of the empty property referenced in the officer’s report, in order to acquire the property and bring it back into residential use.

ii.       Authorised proceedings to make a Compulsory Purchase Order and officers are instructed to take all necessary action to implement the resolution.

iii.       Approved the capital funding as outlined in section 4 (Financial Implications) of the officer’s report is made available in respect of the acquisition and associated costs which will be recovered through the sale of the property.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Empty Homes Officer.

 

The Committee welcomed the report.

 

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 report provided an update on the programme to deliver 500

Council homes with funding from the Combined Authority.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

       i.          Noted the continued progress on the delivery of the Combined Authority programme.

     ii.          Noted the funding structure for the Combined Authority programme.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee received a report from the Head of Housing Development Agency.

 

In response to questions and comments from the Committee the Strategic Director and Head of Housing Development said the following:

 

       i.          The Council had its own sustainability housing standard which all dwellings across the housing programme met or exceeded.

     ii.          The Council’s standard surpassed the national sustainability requirements.

   iii.          Each development was treated differently regarding sustainability, as each site had different constraints and requirements. 

   iv.          The Mill Road development had a 19% improvement on the sustainability building regulations. This was due to certain factors such as a fabric first approach, solar panels, heat and power systems which would reduce admissions significantly.

    v.          Electric vehicle charging points would be installed on certain developments.

   vi.          Stopping the use of fossil fuels on a development would be a long term project for officers to investigate.

 vii.           Passive house standards was impacted by the site constrained as well as type of homes built.

viii.          It was not currently possible to deliver a passive house standard on higher level apartments.

   ix.          Reiterated the Councils build programme had been designed to meet a high level of sustainability.

    x.          The consultation process on the Meadows and Buchan Street development had been voluntary. This was in advance of the statutory consultation process which would follow.

   xi.          Over three thousand leaflets had been distributed to advertise the Meadows and Bucham Street public consultation. Posters had been displayed throughout the area and advertised online. The exhibition finished at 9.00pm for people to attend after work.

 xii.          A follow up meeting was then arranged to discuss concerns raised at the exhibition which covered the loss of open space.

xiii.          In respect of the Cromwell Road development the plans put forward had been for 295 houses, which was above the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) proposal of 225 houses. The profit margin was lower for the council’s joint venture partner compared to what they would have received developing the site themselves.

xiv.          Had listened to public consultation on the Meadows and Bucham Scheme. Officers were currently working with architects on how to enhance the public open space; therefore no clear response could have been given to the public speaker. The public consultation was still open on this matter.

xv.          The demand for housing in the area which the Meadows and Bucham Street stood was one of the highest in the city.

xvi.          The relationship with the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) was 50/50 joint venture but set up as an independent company. All of the accounting was by open book and had audited accounts

The Committee resolved by 5 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.

Request for budget to develop a new housing scheme at Campkin Road - indicative outturn 70 Council Homes.

Matter for Decision

The report referred to the devolution deal with Central Government and sought approval for a capital budget for the scheme based on

the indicative capacity study which had been undertaken for the site and the outlined appraisals referenced in the Officer’s report and for the delivery route to be adopted.  

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

       i.          Approved the scheme in principle, recommending to Council, the inclusion of an indicative capital budget for the scheme of £15,964,921 in the Housing Capital Investment Plan, to cover all of the site assembly, construction costs, professional fees and associated other fees to deliver a scheme that meets an identified housing need in Cambridge City.

     ii.          Approved that, subject to Council approval of the budget,  delegated authority be given to the Exec Cllr for Housing in conjunction with the Strategic Director to enable the site to be developed through Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) subject to a value for money assessment to be carried out on behalf of the Council.

   iii.          Authorised, subject to Council approval of the budget, the Strategic Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor for housing to approve variations to the scheme including the number of units and mix of property types and sizes outlined in this report.

   iv.          Approved the use of the updated Council Home Loss Policy attached as Appendix 3 of the Officer’s report.

    v.          Delegated authority, subject to Council approval of the budget, to the Strategic Director to commence Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) proceedings on Leasehold properties to be demolished to enable the development should these be required.

   vi.          Delegated authority to the Strategic Director to serve initial Demolition Notices under the Housing Act 1985.

 

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 Development Manager Housing.

 

In response to comments and questions from the Committee the Senior Development Manager Housing said the following:

 

       i.          Did not have the percentage figures for the area of land the site was to be built on.

     ii.          The form of the development had been set by the need to keep the line of trees which ran along Campkin Road.

   iii.          Acknowledged there had been previous problems with shared ownership tenures concerning the letting and selling of these properties. The Committee had previously discussed these issues and possible solutions such as changes to the tenure to reintroduce as homes for rent.

   iv.          The scheme was for all council rented homes.

    v.          There was currently no shared ownership in this scheme.

   vi.          The key factor was to deliver rented affordable housing in the city.

 vii.          Was aware that parking in the area was difficult. The scheme’s proposal was a ratio of 0.65 parking spaces to each dwelling.

viii.          Did not believe the development had a major impact on the availability of open spaces; the most significant aspect of the open space was the line of trees earlier referenced.

   ix.          In line with planning policy 5% of the dwellings would be wheel chair adapted.

    x.          Through the Climate Change Strategy and action plan the Council were due to go to tender to install electric charging points across the council car parks. The electric charging points would also be addressed through the Council’s individual planning applications.

   xi.          Tenants affected by the development would be given emergency housing status. They would also be permitted to move back but this would be at a higher rental rate. However there would a range of compensation packages for a loss of their homes in the first instance and for those tenants who were under occupied would have the option to downsize.

 

The Executive Councillor informed the Committee the unsold shared ownership units on the Virido development had been approved by Homes England to be turned into Council rented accommodation. Approval from Planning was required to finalise this.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

(i) Recommend to Council to approve carry forward requests for revenue funding from 2018/19 to 2019/20, if appropriate, as detailed in report appendix.
(ii) Recommend to Council to approve capital funding rephasing from 2018/19 to 2019/20, where relevant, as detailed in report appendix.

Matter for Decision

 

The report presented, for the Housing Revenue Account:

i.        A summary of actual income and expenditure compared to the final budget for 2018/19 (outturn position)

ii.       Revenue and capital budget variances with explanations

iii.       Specific requests to carry forward funding available from budget underspends into 2019/20.

iv.      A summary of housing debt which was written off during 2018/19.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.                 Approved carry forward requests totalling £772,500 in revenue funding from 2018/19 into 2019/20, as detailed in Appendix C of the Officer’s report (Part 1 of the recommendation)

ii.               Approved carry forward requests of £5,256,000 in HRA and General Fund Housing capital budgets and associated resources from 2018/19 into 2019/20 to fund re-phased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D and the associated notes to the appendix of the Officer’s report is recommended to Council (Part 2 of the recommendation)

 

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 / Business Manager.

 

The Assistant Head of Finance / Business Manager informed Members that officers will be bringing the revised housing revenue business plan to Committee in September including an updated Assessment Management plan.

 

However the outturn figures which had been reported at this meeting had raised concern, areas highlighted were repairs spending, the over reliance of the external contractors and increased costs.

 

The Head of Housing Maintenance and Assets conformed that investigation work had started immediately on revenue, repairs and voids. Officers needed to ensure the service was being managed well financially and operationally. An external consultant would be used to provide additional capacity to assist with these reviews and would be reported to the Housing Scrutiny Committee once completed.

 

In response the Strategic Director, Head of Housing Maintenance and Assets and the Assistant Head of Finance / Business Manager stated the following in response to Members’ questions:

 

       i.          Noted the concerns regarding the underspend in the Decent Homes Programme; to deliver the programme was dependent  on a number of factors, such as having planned maintenance contractors in place and the workforce to survey the work and place the task orders. There had also been some tenant refusals.

     ii.          Issues with staff shortages in the Technical Services team had meant the complete programme had not been delivered as not all surveys and orders could be not undertaken. Had recruited to some of the vacant posts.

   iii.          Acknowledged the comment there were trained resident inspectors who could inspect void properties and make recommendations.

   iv.          Agreed the maintenance of Council homes was important and staff were committed to make sure the standards were met.

    v.          Could not comment on a particular complaint raised in Committee but the emergency  had been dealt with promptly and had been in touch with the complainant and apologised for the length of time they were waiting for the work to be made good.  

   vi.          This complaint and others had highlighted that some of the Council’s processes were not as good as they should have been; processes required modernising and improvement which was why the review had been brought forward.

 vii.          The review would explore whether the quality of the housing stock was deteriorating due to the lack of investment.

viii.          The Assessment Management Plan would determine what detailed work was required to the Council’s housing stock.

   ix.          Significant funding had been taken out of housing maintenance and the delivery of housing services as a result of Government policy changes in 2016.

    x.          The new business plan would take into account investment in the Council’s own stock and the ability to provide new homes; the balance of investment would be something that the Committee would consider at a future meeting.

   xi.          The review would also examine if the organisational structure was fit for purpose

 xii.          Planned to build stronger services which would be more responsive to repairs.

xiii.          A new housing management system had been purchased which would improve the business processes and reporting processes and trends would easily be identified.

xiv.          The review would consider whether any rental surplus in the Housing Revenue Account should be used for investment in new homes be set aside to redeem debt.

xv.          Any major variances of over £20,000 were recorded and reported. The column showing ‘other’ would be the total of all the other cost centres where there were small variances.

xvi.          One in fourteen Council tenants had transitioned to universal credit.

xvii.          The Disabled Facilities Grant came from Government and used in the private sector not for disabled adaptations in the Council’s housing stock. As it was a Government grant this had to be requested to be carried forward to use in 2019/20.

xviii.          The new housing management system will allow residents to access their accounts online.

xix.          Welcomed the suggestion of a resident online annual review; officers would work with the Resident Engagement Officer to look at the best ways that residents could provide feedback.

 

The Committee resolved by 8 votes to 0 to endorse part 1 of the recommendation

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 to endorse part 2 of the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

Matter for Decision

The report presented, for the General Fund Housing portfolio.

 

i. A summary of actual income and expenditure compared to the final budget for 2018/19 (outturn position)

ii. Revenue and capital budget variances with explanations

iii. Specific requests to carry forward funding available from budget underspends into 2019/20.

 

Members of the Scrutiny Committee were asked to consider and make known their views on the proposals for consideration by the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources at the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee on 1 July 2019.  

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

       i.          Approved carry forward requests of revenue funding from 2018/19 to 2019/20, as detailed in Appendix C of the Officer’s report, noting that none were proposed for this portfolio on this occasion.

     ii.          Approved carry forward requests of £200,000 in capital resources from 2018/19 to 2019/20 to fund re-phased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D 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 Assistant Head of Finance / Business Manager.

 

The Committee were advised this would be the last year that individual reports were produced for each portfolio for presentation to the relevant scrutiny committee. In line with the revised budget scrutiny process followed for the 2019/20 budget, one combined 2019/20 General Fund outturn report covering all portfolios would be produced for scrutiny at Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee.

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

To approve the review document and recommendations contained therein for permanent funding of additional staff taken on to meet the additional demands of the Act.

Matter for Decision

The reported referred to The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 (‘the Act’), came into effect on 3 April 2018.  The Act placed major new duties on authorities to relieve or prevent homelessness. 

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Housing

 

       i.          Noted the contents of the report and endorsed the approach the Council had taken as described in the appendix of the officer’s report in relation to applying its new powers.

 

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 Housing which outlined The Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and the key aspects of the new act.

 

In response to questions and comments from the Committee the Head of Housing said the following:

 

       i.          With regards to the hidden homeless, intelligence was gained from housing forms submitted to the Council. Applicants would indicate if they were sofa surfing, moving between properties, or if they had a bedroom of their own in the accommodation where they were staying.

     ii.          Officers would follow up with those individuals if there was sufficient concern of an imminent threat of homelessness.

   iii.          There had been 212 referrals in six months under the duty to refer from statutory bodies (such as the prison services) to the Council.

   iv.          Under the homelessness partnership the council shared good practice with other local authorities.

    v.           

The Executive Councillor for Housing thanked the Head of Housing and his team for the work that they had undertaken dealing with the increase in caseloads. He also welcomed the Government’s decision to scrap the section 21 notice, the ‘no fault’ eviction issued to tenants from their landlords.

 

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 recommend to Council that the Cambridge Local Plan: Towards 2031 is adopted. Supplementary Planning Documents that have been prepared in parallel with the new Local Plan will be adopted by the Executive Member after the Local Plan is adopted.

Matter for Decision

 

       i.          The preparation of the new Cambridge Local Plan had now reached the end of the plan making process. The Inspectors’ Report had been received, and subject to incorporating the associated Main Modifications identified by the Inspectors, they conclude that the Local Plan was sound. The Local Plan may now be presented to Council to be adopted as part of the Development Plan.

 

     ii.          During the Examination process, the Council took the decision to move forward with the preparation of a number of site specific SPDs. This was a pragmatic response to the lengthy examination process, allowing further detail to be provided and assist with the implementation of specific proposals. As a result, seven SPDs had been prepared in parallel with the Cambridge Local Plan.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport

 

       i.          Noted the Inspectors’ Report containing the Inspectors’ Main Modifications to be made to the submitted Cambridge Local Plan in order for it to be found sound (Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report);

     ii.          Noted the schedule of Additional Modifications (Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report) to the submitted Cambridge Local Plan to make factual and typographical corrections; and

   iii.          Noted the Main Modifications to the submitted Policies Map published alongside the Inspectors’ Report as a reference document to the examination (Appendix 3 of the officer’s report);

   iv.          Recommend to Council that the Cambridge Local Plan 2018 including both Main and Additional Modifications was adopted (Appendix 4 of the Officer’s report); 

    v.          Recommend to Council that the Cambridge Policies Map 2018, including Main Modifications, be adopted (Appendix 5 of the Officer’s report); 

   vi.          Recommend to Council that it authorises the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development for Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, and the Chair and Spokes for the Planning Policy and Transport Scrutiny Committee, to make minor typographical amendments or updates in preparing the final version of the Adopted Local Plan and Policies Map; and

 vii.          Noted that the seven Supplementary Planning Documents prepared in parallel with the Local Plan, and listed in Appendix 6 of the Officer’s report, would be approved by the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport following the adoption of the Local Plan.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee received a report from the Planning Policy Manager.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Sought clarification regarding the status of an SPD that was linked to the Local Plan.

     ii.          Praised the plan for respecting the integrity of the Green Belt.

 

The Planning Policy Manager and Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The additional SPD’s would add weight and clarity to future planning decisions.

   iii.          Confirmed that the Combined Authority had questioned the predicted growth in jobs (Table 1 of the Officers report). The figures had been based on economic forecasts and had been tested by the Planning Inspector and found sound.

     ii.          Plans for specific areas, such as Mitcham’s Corner, would be linked to wider Greater Cambridgeshire Partnerships.

   iii.          The length of time taken to approve the plan had been unusual and comments on the experience would be feed back to the Inspector.

 

Councillor Hipkin expressed concerns that the predicted growth would be unsustainable without suitable infrastructure. The Cambridge and Peterborough Independent Economic Review had concluded that the growth of jobs in South Cambs would put additional strain on housing. In addition traffic congestion could become a brake on growth. A situation could arise where a good planning application had to be refused due to the impact on traffic. The situation was not helped by the number of bodies vising for power over transport decision and the lack of collaborative working and trust.

 

Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development stated that the plan was light on specific transport proposals as it had been prepared alongside the transport plan and part of the Cambridge Bid process. Transport barriers would be identified and looking ahead, ways to reconcile transport infrastructure with the delivery of growth site would be developed. An alignment of transport goals and growth capacity would follow looking forward to 2030. The Plan review process would allow for a re-examination of the figures.

 

The Committee resolved by 7 votes to 0 and one abstention 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.