Decisions

To approve the new Corporate Plan 2019-22.

The report recommended approval of a revised Corporate Plan for the period 2019-22. The Corporate Plan sets out the Council’s strategic priorities for the medium term, reflecting the Council’s vision and consistent with the direction of travel articulated in the Medium Term Financial Strategy and in the various strategies and plans that have been developed in recent months and years.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnership

 

i.                 Approved the draft Corporate Plan 2019-22 attached at Appendix A.

 

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 Corporate Strategy.

 

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.

To enable the Committee to scrutinise the Council's representative on the Combined Authority.

Matter for Decision

The report provides an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) since the 8 October meeting of Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships

 

i.       Noted the update on issues considered at the meetings of the Combined Authority held on 31 October 2018, 28 November 2018 and 30 January 2019.

 

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 and noted Appendix C (decision sheet for CPCA meeting 30.01.19) which was circulated at the meeting.

 

Councillor Herbert said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          A business plan for the CPCA had been included within the January Board agenda, but it may not have been heavily publicised.  This included 12 projects which the CPCA had prioritised, which may not all directly benefit Cambridge. 

     ii.          Commented that the CPCA still needed to recruit permanent key officers including the Chief Executive and Director of Finance.

   iii.          Cambridge had a lot to gain with the CPCA.

   iv.          Commented that there needed to be clearer leadership at the CPCA.

    v.          Had been challenging the work of the CPCA with South Cambs District Council.

   vi.          Commented that the CPCA could not sustain spending £7million on staff and overheads

 vii.          Questioned whether the CPCA was delivering for businesses and the Cambridge and Peterborough economy since the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) was incorporated within the CPCA.

viii.          Commented on the CPCA’s inconsistent decisions regarding confidential papers and reports.

 

The Committee noted the report.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

To consider whether to revise, replace or continue with the existing Council Tax Reduction scheme.

To consider changes to the empty homes Council tax premium.

Matter for Decision

The purpose of the report was to undertake the annual review of the Council Tax Reduction Scheme and to decide whether the Scheme should be revised, replaced or continued for the financial year 2019-2020.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

i. Agreed to continue the current Council Tax Reduction Scheme framework with changes to applicable amounts and premiums as defined within the local scheme. The scheme supports low-paid workers already struggling to cope with stagnant wages, rising living costs and on-going Welfare Reforms that impact on Universal Credit, Tax Credits and other in-work support.

ii. Agreed that Care Leavers under 25 are included in the vulnerable groups classification within the local Council Tax Reduction Scheme.

iii.   Agreed that following the delay in rolling out full service Universal Credit to October 2018, that the significant review of the current scheme be carried out during spring 2019 to reflect the rollout of Universal Credit.

iv.  Agreed that Empty Property Premium increases are adopted in full from 1 April 2019 to 1 April 2021.

 

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 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 the implementation of a Retail Discount Scheme for 2019/20 & 2020/21 as announced in the Autumn budget and in line with detailed guidance issued by Government.

Councillors Green and Thornburrow left the room for this item.

 

Matter for Decision

The purpose of the report was to recommend the adoption of a policy to award “Retail Discount” in accordance with the Discretionary Rate Relief powers as contained within Section 47 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (as amended) for the years 2019-20 and 2020-21.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

i.      Adopted  the Retail Discount policy (appendix A of the officers report) for qualifying businesses in occupation of retail premises which have a rateable value of less than £51,000, for the financial years 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020 and 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021 only.

ii.     Delegated authority to the Head of Revenues and Benefits to award the “Retail Discount” where a ratepayer demonstrates their entitlement.

 

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 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 presented the review of the pilot phase of the Cambridge City Housing Company Limited (CCHC) and considered whether the pilot phase should continue, the company should be moved into business as usual, or if it should be closed.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships

i.        Approved that CCHC moved from its pilot phase into business as usual.

ii.       Confirmed the Council’s financial support for the company, subject to ongoing review by the S151 officer.

iii.      Agreed that the Council refinanced the existing loan to the company for three years at 2.02%.

iv.      Supported the company directors’ recommendation that, in view of the possible market impact of Brexit, any decision on further investment was delayed until at least the final quarter of 2019/20, or until the local property market had stabilised.

v.       Agreed that a third director be appointed to the company

 

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

       i.          It was proposed to keep the loan rate to the CCHC despite the Bank of England confirming that it would retain current interest rates and they would not be increasing their interest rate. The loan rate would provide additional interest to the council but it would not be a significant amount.

     ii.          The CCHC was not advised to buy any additional properties at the moment given the economic uncertainty with Brexit. If properties were bought and there was a downturn in the housing market this could bring the company to a negative equity position.

   iii.          The Cromwell Road development had other objectives and priorities.

 

Councillor Herbert confirmed that there was a commitment to continue the CCHC.  The company had an obligation to operate without losing money. A range of options was contained within the confidential appendix and based on current overheads the company could continue to operate.  There were significant development options due to come forward in the next couple of years.

 

The Committee resolved:

-        unanimously to endorse recommendation 2.1

-        unanimously to endorse recommendation 2.2

-        by 4 votes to 0 to endorse recommendation 2.3

-        by 4 votes to 0 to endorse recommendation 2.4

-        unanimously to endorse recommendation 2.5

 

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 set out a proposal in relation to the Lion Yard Investment

 

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 2 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

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

a) To propose Revenue and Capital Budgets for all General Fund portfolios for the financial years 2019/20, (Estimate), 2020/21 and 2021/22 (Forecast).

b) To recommend the level of Council Tax for 2018/19.

Budget-Setting Report (General Fund) 2019/20 to 2022/23

 

Recommendations of the Executive, which met on 11 February 2019, are set out in the Budget Setting Report which went to Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee on 11 February 2019 (version 1b) as updated by the Head of Finance to correct an error relating to the Legal Practice item (reference S4247 p141 of the second circulation agenda).

 

Unless otherwise specified, all references in the recommendations to Appendices, pages and sections relate to version 2 of the Budget-Setting Report.  This can be found via the Council agenda page:

 

https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=116&MId=3405&Ver=4

 

Decision of the Executive

The Executive resolved to recommend the Budget Setting Report 2019/20 to 2022/23 to Council on 21 February 2019.

 

General Fund Revenue Budgets: [Section 5, page 30 refers]

a)   Agree recommendations in respect of:

·       Revenue Pressures shown in Appendix C (a) and Savings shown in Appendix C (b) of the BSR.

·       There are no bids to be funded from External or Earmarked Funds (which would be included as Appendix C (c) of the BSR.

·       Non-Cash Limit items as shown in Appendix C (d) of the BSR.

 

b)   Confirm the delegation to the Chief Financial Officer (Head of Finance) of the calculation and determination of the Council Tax taxbase (including submission of the National Non-Domestic Rates Forecast Form, NNDR1, for each financial year) which will be set out in Appendix A (a) of the BSR.

c)    Approve the level of Council Tax for 2019/20 as set out in Appendix A (b) [page 56 -57 refers] and Section 4 [page 27-29 refers] of the BSR.

 

Note that the Police and Crime Commissioner, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Fire Authority and Cambridgeshire County Council have issued precepts to the City Council for the year 2019/20.

 

Other Revenue:

d)   Delegate to the Head of Finance authority to finalise changes relating to any corporate and/or departmental restructuring and any reallocation of support service and central costs, in accordance with the CIPFA Service Reporting Code of Practice for Local Authorities (SeRCOP).

e)   Approve an additional contribution of £250k to the Cambridge Live Development Plan Earmarked Reserve to include transition funding, proposal NCL4325.

 

Capital: [Section 7, page 35 refers]

Capital Plan:

f) Approve the proposals outlined in Appendix E (a) for inclusion in the Capital Plan, including any additional use of revenue resources required.

 

g) Approve the revised Capital Plan for the General Fund as set out in Appendix E (d), the Funding as set out in Section 7, page 39 of the BSR.

 

General Fund Reserves:

h) Note the impact of revenue and capital budget approvals and approve the resulting level of reserves to be used to support the budget proposals as set out in the table [Section 8, page 45 refers] of the BSR.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

(a) To propose Revenue and Capital Budgets for all General Fund portfolios for the financial years 2019/20, (Estimate), 2020/21 and 2021/22 (Forecast).
(b) To recommend the level of Council Tax for 2019/20.

Matter for Decision

The Budget-Setting Report (BSR) included the detailed revenue bids and savings and capital proposals and sets out the key parameters for the detailed recommendations and budget finalisation being considered at this meeting. The report reflects recommendations that will be made to The Executive on 11 February 2019 and then to Council, for consideration at its meeting on 21 February 2019.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

To recommend to the Executive to:

 

i. Approve Revenue Pressures shown in Appendix C (a) and Savings shown in Appendix C (b).

ii. Agree there are no bids to be funded from External or Earmarked Funds (which would be included as Appendix C (c).

iii. Approve Non-Cash Limit items as shown in Appendix C (d).

 

To recommend to Council to

 

i.      Approve delegation to the Chief Financial Officer (Head of Finance) of the calculation and determination of the Council Tax taxbase (including submission of the National Non-Domestic Rates Forecast Form, NNDR1, for each financial year) which will be set out in Appendix A (a).

ii.     Approve the level of Council Tax for 2019/20 as set out in Appendix A (b) (to follow for Council) and Section 4 [page 27 refers].

Noted that the Police and Crime Commissioner, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Fire Authority and Cambridgeshire County Council have issued precepts to the City Council for the year 2019/20.

iii. Approve delegation to the Head of Finance authority to finalise changes relating to any corporate and/or departmental restructuring and any reallocation of support service and central costs, in accordance with the CIPFA Service Reporting Code of Practice for Local Authorities (SeRCOP).

iv.  Approve an additional contribution of £250k to the Cambridge Live Development Plan Earmarked Reserve to include transition funding, proposal NCL4325.

v.  Approve the proposals outlined in Appendix E (a) for inclusion in the Capital Plan, including any additional use of revenue resources required. Report page no. 3 Agenda page no.

vi.Approve the revised Capital Plan for the General Fund as set out in Appendix E (d), the Funding as set out in Section 7, page 39.

vii. Note the impact of revenue and capital budget approvals and approve the resulting level of reserves to be used to support the budget proposals as set out in the table [Section 8, page 45 refers].

 

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 which was verbally updated at the meeting to correct an error relating to the Legal Practice item (reference S4247 p141 of the second circulation agenda).

 

Members of the Executive and Spokes Councillors who did not ordinarily attend the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee joined the Committee for discussion on the budget.

 

C4156 Cherry Hinton Library

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Finance confirmed:

i.    It was not unusual for capital bids to be funded in a variety of ways or to utilise funding from third parties (for example a school could use s106 contributions to develop sports facilities). If the British Legion pulled out of the project then the council would need to make some provision to comply with accounting practices.

 

In response to Councillor’s questions, Councillor Robertson commented:

i.                 That some schemes utilised funding from third parties for example through lottery bids.

 

C4180 Vehicle Fleet

In response to Members’ questions the Strategic Director (SH) confirmed:

i.                 She would check to see whether there was similar grant funding available for smaller electric vehicles as there was for larger vehicles.

ii.               A fleet review would be undertaken in the coming year; it was difficult to provide comparisons between vehicles.

 

In response to Councillor’s questions, Councillor Moore commented:

i.      That this issue was not simply about costs; but a lot of the vehicles were very big and the council needed to be sure that the new electric vehicle technology would function in the way the council required.

 

I14191 Environmental Health service fees and charges

In response to Members’ questions the Strategic Director (SH) confirmed:

i.      That existing fees and charges would be increased by inflation; new fees were not being introduced.

ii.       She apologised for inconsistencies between the BSR and the background briefing note to the BSR.

 

In response to Councillor’s questions, Councillor Moore confirmed:

i.        That mentoring visits referred to in I14191 were primarily training sessions for food operators.

 

URP4222 MRF cost – reduction income and increase costs (with current contract and market) under Amey contract

In response to Members’ questions the Strategic Director (SH) confirmed:

i.        That there was an officer dedicated to dealing with recycling. Work was undertaken with households who regularly had contaminated recycling.

 

In response to Councillor’s questions, Councillor Moore commented:

i.        That the council could not focus on everything all year round. Recently there had been a campaign which focussed on increasing the recycling rate of metals. The council was also monitoring the contract with Amey Cespa more effectively. The current project would focus on contaminated recycling.

 

B4219 Volunteer Groups – Continue with Officer support with recycling and cleansing groups in City and South Cambs    

In response to Members’ questions the Strategic Director (SH) confirmed:

i.    That the post referred to in proposal B4219 was a different post to the officer referred to in proposal URP4222.

 

B4187 Increase Procurement Team Resources from 2.5FTE to 3FTE.

In response to Members’ questions the Strategic Director (FB) commented:

i.      That the additional procurement officer resource would assist internal departments when they were undertaking procurement exercises and would also mean that the council would have more resources devoted to monitoring the delivery of contracts.

 

URP4240 Eastnet – Forced Procurement Replacement of Virgin Media CPSN

In response to Members’ questions the Strategic Director (FB) commented:

i.              That this was a shared services agreement with other authorities so the council had less control over the contract but the provisions in the contract were tighter than the existing contract. It would cost the Council a lot more if we undertook this procurement on our own.

 

NCL4325 Additional Contribution to Cambridge Live Development Plan Earmarked Reserve to include transition funding.

In response to Members’ questions the Strategic Director (SH) confirmed:

i.              That the service would be in-house from the 1 April 2019. Full details of the transfer were still being worked on but the service would report into the Community Services Section and it would be incorporated into the financial management system; it would need tight cost controls.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Head of Finance commented:

i.                 That there were no proposals to change back office costs and that these would be drawn from existing resources. Re-allocation of overheads would be re-charged in the same way other services are charged within the Council.

 

S4169 Deletion of 18.5 hours of the Grants Officer

In response to Members’ questions the Strategic Director (SH) commented:

i.              That the workload of the officer had reduced and they had been undertaking other tasks so the hours of the post allocated to grants work had been reduced to reflect this.

 

S4174 Deletion of 7 hours of the Housing Strategy Manager post

In response to Members’ questions the Strategic Director (SH) commented:

i.              That the post holder had been undertaking their role working 30 hours per week for a long time and there was no impact on their job. Reallocation of funding had not been considered.

 

KI4213 Reduction in income due to review of Shopmobility charges

In response to Councillor’s questions, Councillor Blencowe confirmed:

i.              That charges would be removed and a free service would be available from 1 April 2019.

 

S4301 Planning Service – new and revised service delivery

In response to Councillor’s questions, Councillor Blencowe commented that:

i.              City Councillors would continue to have the right to call in planning applications to Planning Committee. 

ii.             Residents would still have the right to approach their Ward Councillors regarding planning applications. 

iii.           Planning Committee would make the decision on any changes to the planning process.

iv.          There were a number of applications that came to Planning Committee that only had 1 objection. A S73 application with a slight variation would automatically go to Planning Committee and if there was no new information brought to the case officer this was an example of a decision that could be delegated to an Officer.

v.            The Chair of South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) Planning Committee approved whether applications which had been called in went to the SCDC Planning Committee for decision.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development commented:

i.              That there were 107 Planning Committee decisions last year and 91% of decisions were delegated to Officers.  There was a significant cost associated with every decision made at Planning Committee.

ii.             A Planning Committee decision cost £1400 compared to £284 for a delegated decision.  He provided examples of other council and the percentage of officer delegated decisions: Cheltenham had 91%, Harrogate 96%, Oxford 94% and Bath was 97%.

iii.           There had been an investment of £200,000 in IT which would allow faster use of planning software.  The practice was to notify neighbours by letter which was made clear in the Statement of Community Involvement, however there was no policy beyond that and legislation only required a site notice to be displayed.

iv.          An application at Darwin Green had 200 notification letters sent out and no responses were received.    The Cavendish application had 500 notification letters and 7 responses were received. He was trying to work towards a more sustainable notification process. The software would enable individuals to sign up to receive notifications when an application had been received and was going to Planning Committee for decision.

v.            Some landowners had indicated that this would be useful as tenants did not always pass on information that had been sent to a property through the post.

vi.          There would be a review process so that officer and committee time was being used effectively. A number of applications had gone back to committee when there was an objection that the committee had already considered.

vii.         There was a proposal to consult on whether there should be charges for pre-application advice.

 

In response to Councillor’s questions, Councillor Herbert commented:

i.              That the centralised Planning Committee worked well and decisions taken at Area Committees varied when they had dealt with planning applications.  

ii.             Some notification letters did not reach those directly affected.

iii.           Officers would continue to make reasoned decisions.

iv.          Consideration of the changes would be subject to a full consultation exercise.

 

B4198 Streets and Open Spaces Growth Officer

In response to Members’ questions the Strategic Director (SH) confirmed:

i.              That this budget item was due to delayed development timetables and was an additional cost; there were areas of public open space that still needed to be adopted.

 

B4322 Community Clear up

In response to Councillor’s questions, Councillor Thornburrow confirmed:

i.              That the council ran skip days through the different estates however she wanted 12 additional skip days that were not related to the estates to encourage residents to ‘re-use, recycle and repair’. 

ii.             She wanted to work with local councillors where there was the need and the desire to find good locations for these additional clear up days.

 

C4192 Environmental Improvement Programme

In response to Councillor’s questions, Councillor Thornburrow confirmed:

i.              That £170,000 would be coming from funding not spent in 18/19.

 

The Committee resolved by 4 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.

The purpose of the discussion was to scrutinise the Liberal Democrat budget amendment.

 

The Members of the Committee and Executive Councillors asked the following questions.  The answers provided by Liberal Democrat Members immediately follow.

 

C0004 – Housing Purchase Capital

i.         Members questioned the benefit to house homeless people without the support which went alongside it.

 

In response to Councillor’s questions, Councillor Bick confirmed:

This referred to a service that the Council already provided, which was constrained by the number of landlords offering houses into the scheme. There were a variety of reasons why people became homeless which included addictions, mental health issues and domestic circumstances. This proposal would expand housing resources and enable people to get back on their feet. 

 

ii.               Members questioned what was meant by ‘minimum support’ in the C0004 proposal.

 

In response to Councillor’s questions, Councillor Cantrill confirmed:

‘Minimum support’ was the level of support needed for individuals to live an independent life. Homelessness was a major crisis; rough sleepers equated to around 15-20% of people who were homeless but a larger part of homelessness was not seen.  Private landlords were reluctant to rent to individuals who were homeless and the Council had to step in to assist.

 

iii.             Members questioned why 5 properties (3 bed in size) would be prioritised for homeless individuals to rent.

 

In response to Councillor’s questions, Councillor Cantrill confirmed:

The decision to propose 5 properties, 3 bed in size, was a balanced decision to help with capacity; it may not go all the way but it would help.  Unless individuals met certain criteria then they would not be prioritised for housing.  For example males 25-35 years of age who were divorced and had a job but who had to pay maintenance towards dependents could end up ‘sofa surfing’ or using Cambridge City Housing Company’s services.

 

Proposed to use the standard key worker model, for example teachers and nurses who struggled to make ends meet. The proposal would help those individuals who were the golden thread of this city.  It was a struggle to recruit teachers not only in Cambridge but across the County.

 

iv.            Members questioned if there would be any revenue support (additional staff time) to assist with the administration of the proposed 40 tenancies.

 

In response to Councillor’s questions, Councillor Cantrill confirmed:

Clarified that if an individual’s income did not increase or decrease by more than 10% in a 12 month period, then a review of rent would not be triggered. It was proposed that rents would increase by inflation which on past experience was unlikely to trigger the 10% threshold.  This approach was approved by Shelter. 

 

v.              Members commented that the rate of return was low as it was expected to be 1.6%.  There seemed to be little scope to cover normal operational risks.

 

In response to Councillor’s questions, Councillor Cantrill confirmed:

The proposal was not just about a financial return but was also about a social return for the residents of the city. The risk could be managed in a reasonable way. Key workers were not always able to afford to live in the city.

 

vi.            Members questioned the rent range that would be charged for the properties if rents were to be based on one third of a household income. There appeared to be a proposed monthly rent range of £400-£1100.

 

In response to Councillor’s questions, Councillor Cantrill confirmed:

The number of households with a lower income who were able to live in Cambridge was shrinking; the cost of living in the city was gentrifying Cambridge.   Charging a rent which was one third of a household’s income would generate an adequate return.  For the city to operate it needed teachers, carers and nurses, this proposal would send a message. This proposal was similar to council properties where some people paid local authority rent and others paid a local housing allowance rent (which had a 20% difference). This was regardless of whether the property was new or was an existing council property.

 

vii.           Members commented this was a wonderful idea but could not see how the scheme would add up.  Also commented the flexibility that the £12 million investment would provide would be better met through a council programme.

 

In response to Councillor’s questions, Councillor Cantrill confirmed:

When the Council introduced the real living wage, it impacted on 15% of the council’s staff, this sent a message across the city. Noted the work the ruling group had done on this initiative.  The Council was one of the key stakeholders who needed to put a peg in the ground, so that other stakeholders would up their game.  The Council should forgo financial benefit for social benefit.

The Executive Councillor will recommend the Strategy to Council. (Item to be considered by Council in February 2019.)

Matter for Decision

The report outlined the capital strategy of the Council together with a summary capital programme for the General Fund (GF) and the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). The previous capital strategy was approved by Council on 22 February 2018 and the report update focused on providing a framework for delivery of the capital expenditure plans over a 10 – 30 year period.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

i. Approved the capital strategy as set out in this report.

ii. Noted the summary Capital programme.

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

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

i.         She would consider whether the BSR could include details about the income that the council received from investments.

ii.         Investment in the Cambridge City Housing Company would be seen as a treasury management issue and would therefore be included within the Treasury Management report.

iii.         She thought the new key issue suggested of ‘strategic importance on the shape of the city’ was partially covered by the first bullet point contained on page 25 of the second circulation agenda.

 

Councillor Robertson agreed it would be useful if reports on investments followed the framework for ‘key issues in investments’ contained on p25 of the second circulation agenda.  

 

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.

Committee recommended:

·       To approve the proposed policy statement on employer discretions.

·       To authorise the Head of Human Resources to determine decisions relating to the merits of individual cases.

·       That Council officers will continue to review the statement every 3 years and / or in line with changes to the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) as advised by the Local Government Pensions Committee (LGPC) and the Administering Authority (Cambridgeshire County Council), and any recommended changes will go before Civic Affairs for approval.

The Committee received a report from the Support Services Manager.

 

The paper outlined Cambridge City Council’s proposed policy statement on Employer Discretions for the Local Government Pension Scheme.

 

In response to Councillor Robertson’s question the Support Services Manager said the discretions policy was in-line with other Local Authorities in the Cambridgeshire area that we were aware of.

 

Unanimously resolved:

       i.          To approve the proposed policy statement on employer discretions (Appendix A of the Officer’s report).

     ii.          To authorise the Head of Human Resources to determine decisions relating to the merits of individual cases.

   iii.          That Council Officers will continue to review the statement every 3 years and / or in line with changes to the Local Government Pension Scheme as advised by the Local Government Pensions Committee and the Administering Authority (Cambridgeshire County Council), and any recommended changes will go before Civic Affairs for approval.

To discuss amount of complaints made relating to the waste service.

The Committee received a report from the Head of Shared Waste and Business Development Manager.

 

The Officer’s report provided an analysis of complaints made relating to the council regarding waste services during the period of April – December 2018.

 

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

       i.          The complaints logging system needed to be clear what was a complaint and what was a comment. Partly because some feedback could be classified as a comment or a complaint. Also to avoid the council being criticised for situations outside of its control.

     ii.          Ward Councillors picked up low level grumblings that were not reported to the Waste Service such as empty bins being left on pavements.

 

The Head of Shared Waste and Business Development Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The Council logged customer feedback as a complaint or comment in accordance with residents’ wishes. The system asked residents to clarify if they were making a compliment, comment or complaint. Usually more complaints were logged than compliments (these were usually given verbally).

     ii.          Various systems were consolidated in 2018 to log responses through different communication methods (email, phone etc) in one place. This led to a spike in complaints recorded (but no change in the actual number received (9181 of the Officer’s report)) as customer contacts were now formally being logged in one system, when they were not always done so before.

   iii.          Issues could be tracked and escalated if customers were not satisfied with responses.

   iv.          The system provided clear information on issues and responses. The same information could be shared with residents and bin crews to give them real time updates.

    v.          The system was being streamlined so residents could report issues at their convenience.

   vi.          Issues beyond the council’s control could lead to resident’s complaints such as blocked roads or bad weather preventing bin collections.

 vii.          Blocked roads were an issue for both city and South Cambridgeshire areas.

viii.          The triage team monitored residents’ feedback and filtered the feedback to ensure it had appropriate headings. Occasionally ‘complaints’ may be changed to ‘service requests’ etc.

   ix.          Officers asked that all issues (complaints, comments and compliments) were reported to the Waste Service so trends could be monitored and reported. The service responded to trends by training lorry crews to work better with residents. For example 130 staff had just been trained about bin placement.

    x.          The complaints report covered waste collection issues from residents and businesses. The system did not currently break figures down to ward level, as the service was built on collection rounds and some of these crossed over wards. It would be possible to provide data based on collection days. . It might be possible to manually produce ward level issue reports for councillors upon request, but this would be time consuming. Officers would explore whether the ICT system might be able to break figures down to ward level in future.

   xi.          Streets and Open Spaces, Waste and Housing Services had the highest number of complaints across the City Council. These could be reported back to Councillor O’Connell in more detail after committee if she wished.

 xii.          The underground waste collection system used in the Eddington (North West Cambridge) Development has been well received. Officers were reviewing if similar underground collection systems could be used on other new developments in future. This was more straight forward than retrofitting existing developments.

 

The Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre addressed the Committee:

       i.          The number of recorded complaints had increased. This was due to the new reporting system.

     ii.          Referred to report p181. The service had increased the number of successful collections to over 99.8%.

   iii.          The position of bins was regularly commented on. Crews had to take bins long distances from homes to where bins could be emptied. The number of complaints was low in comparison to the number of collections made.

   iv.          The reporting system did not register the number of verbal compliments given to crews on their rounds. There were more happy residents than the report figures suggested.

 

Unanimously resolved to note the contents of the Officer’s report.

The Committee received a report from the Head of Human Resources.

 

The report set out a draft pay policy statement as required under the Localism Act. The Localism Act requires the Council to have considered, approved and published a pay policy statement for each financial year. This must be approved by Full Council and be in place by 31 March each year.

 

In response to the report Councillors welcomed the apprentice scheme and commented that the City Council offered better rates of pay for apprentices than other organisations.

 

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

       i.          Trade Unions were supportive of the pay proposals.

     ii.          GMB had previously responded to the proposals. Unison’s position on the consultation in the Officer’s report was now known.

 

Unanimously resolved to:

       i.          Recommend to Council the draft Pay Policy Statement 2019/20 attached as Appendix 1.

     ii.          Note the position on the consultation with Unison members on the proposed pay scale changes, and to receive an update at the Civic Affairs meeting.

   iii.          Recommend to Council the proposal to introduce the proposed changes to the Council’s pay scale with effect from April 2019, attached in Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report and to delegate authority to the Head of Human Resources to implement the changes to the Council’s pay scale.

   iv.          Agree the renaming of the previous grade of JNC1 as ‘Head of Service’.

The committee received a report from the Interim Deputy Head of Finance. 

 

The Audit and Accounts Regulations govern the preparation, approval and publication of local authority accounts. For the 2018/19 financial year there was a requirement for the Chief Financial Officer (Section 151) of the Council to approve draft unaudited accounts by the 31 May and for the audited accounts to be approved by Civic Affairs by 31 July.

 

The Independent Person submitted a written statement:

It would be helpful to hear from Ernst & Young that all of the areas mentioned in Caroline's covering report for item 5 will be addressed through their work.

 

I can see that some areas are picked up but wasn't sure about Cambridge Live and Clay Farm.

 

The Interim Deputy Head of Finance said all of the areas mentioned in the covering report would be addressed through Ernst & Young’s work.

 

Councillor Robertson sought clarification on the issues discussed during the 2017/18 audit with Ernst and Young, which would still be relevant in the current financial year. The Interim Deputy Head of Finance said that mainly they would and that Cambridge Investment Partnership, Clay Farm Community Centre, Business Rates Appeals Provision, Cambridge Live and Future Events were significant areas of judgement and change for 2018/19.

 

Unanimously resolved to note and approve the proposed presentational changes, accounting policies and significant areas of accounting judgement in relation to the 2018/19 Statement of Accounts.

To receive the 2018-19 Ernst and Young Audit Plan.

The Committee received a report from the Ernst & Young External Auditor.

 

The Audit Planning report from Ernst & Young summarised the strategy for the audit of the financial statements and the associated value for money conclusion for 2018/19. The External Auditor confirmed the financial statements were sound and that Ernst and Young had no concerns about the council’s value for money.

 

The following was said in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          Ernst & Young External Auditor: The Cambridge Live fee range in the Officer’s report was an estimate that may vary once Ernst & Young had reviewed Cambridge Live figures. The report was written before the decision was made to bring Cambridge Live back in-house.

     ii.          Head of Finance: Before leaving Charity Main had been diligent in her hand over of notes and knowledge to colleagues in the Finance Department. The Head of Finance would review the situation to mitigate risks of an experienced officer leaving, but no issues were expected. The Interim Deputy Head of Finance was experienced in this area.

   iii.          Head of Finance: Wished to reassure Committee that whilst bringing Cambridge Live back in-house was a risk, a number of officers were supporting the hand over. The Head of Finance was overseeing arrangements but not all of these were under the Council’s control.

 

Councillor Robertson said the Council would apply appropriate financial systems.

 

Unanimously resolved to note the contents of the external audit plan.

The minutes of the meeting held on 1 October 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee received a report from the Environmental Health Manager.

 

The report advised under the powers conferred to Cambridge City Council under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, (as amended), Cambridge City Council has responsibility for licensing Hackney Carriage, Private Hire and Dual Licence Drivers as well as vehicle proprietors and Private Hire Operators within the City.

 

The Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing policy (the ‘policy’) was produced in order to provide the Council, its officers, the trade and the public with appropriate guidelines that put the Council’s licensing requirements into practice in a clear and transparent manner. In exercising its discretion in carrying out its regulatory functions, the Council shall have regard to the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing policy document.

 

The policy was last updated in July 2018, following a review and consultation with the trade and members of the public.

 

Since the policy has come into effect, the Licensing Authority has committed to amending its formal data sharing arrangements in relation to revoked and refused drivers, via the new NR3 National Anti-Fraud Network.

 

There has additionally been a request from the trade to require all

Hackney Carriage and Private Hire vehicles to carry a card payment method and accept debit/credit card payments.

 

It was proposed to renumber the Section entitled ‘Part 5: Enforcement’ in the Index, to reflect previous changes to sections within the main document.

 

Permission was sought from members to go out to consult on the proposed changes to the policy.

 

The Committee received a representation from Mr Vines, Cambridge Licensed Taxis.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          Welcomed the report.

     ii.          Wanted credit card machines in vehicles, and stickers on display to show that card payments could be taken.

   iii.          Cambridge Licensed Taxi vehicles took card payments already, some other organisations did not, which confused customers.

   iv.          Customers would have the option to pay by card or cash.

 

The Committee then debated the Officer’s report.

 

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

       i.          Reducing the amount of cash in taxis would increase drivers’ safety.

     ii.          Welcomed card payment facilities. These reflected the trend towards a cashless society. Customers used a variety of technology to pay such as their mobile phones. Electronic payments avoided payment disputes as there was a clear audit trail unlike handing over cash.

 

In response to Members’ questions Mr Vines said the following:

       i.          Drivers could still be given tips by passengers. The amount could be added to journey payments and would go to drivers. They would not lose out through machine service charges. The trade would absorb card service costs and not pass them onto customers.

 

Councillor Pippas said it was illegal for service suppliers to pass on credit card surcharges to customers. Customers would pay the amount on the meter.

 

     ii.          Customers could make payments within 30 seconds through a variety of methods such as contactless, signature or chip and pin.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Environmental Health Manager said she was unaware of other local authorities introducing a similar (voluntary) scheme. Certainly not ones neighbouring Cambridge. She would check this.

 

The Committee:

Resolved (unanimously) to approve that officers go out to consult on the proposed changes to the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy, using the form within Appendix C of the Officer’s report. The results of the consultation would then be presented at the next full meeting of the Licensing Committee in July 2019.

To agree and adopt the revised table of fees for Licensing.

The Committee received a report from the Environmental Health Manager.

 

The report advised Cambridge City Council, as the Licensing Authority, was responsible for processing and issuing licences for a wide range of activities.

 

The Council needed to demonstrate that the fees it charged for such licences had been set in accordance with the law and best practice, so as to recover its allowable costs in administering the various licensing regimes for which it was responsible.

 

Fees should be set to avoid either a surplus or a subsidy where possible and adjusted, if necessary, in succeeding years to achieve and maintain the correct balance.

 

The Officer’s report set out the revised fees and charges for licences and associated items, which it was proposed should be made with effect from 1 April 2019.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Environmental Health Manager said the following:

       i.          Skin piercing fees were omitted in error from the Officer’s report (para 3.8). They would rise by 2% in-line with other charges.

     ii.          Fees were put up some years ago as the council was not covering its costs.

   iii.          The council was generally covering its costs currently (eg taxi committee hearings). Officers were looking at where the council could charge fees, now and in future, based on case law. In the meantime, 2% seemed viable for this year.

   iv.          A number of fees were set nationally by Central Government, so the council was lobbying to set these locally as they were areas where the council was not covering costs.

 

The Committee:

Resolved (unanimously) to approve the level of fees and charges with effect from 1 April 2019, as set out in Appendix A of the Officer’s report, and to request officers to communicate the charges to the businesses, taxi trade and public.

The following dates were agreed unanimously:

·       22/07/19

·       09/09/19 – subject to review and future agreement by committee

·       09/12/19

·       09/03/20

 

Action Point: Committee to confirm if they would meet 9 September 2019 or another date.

 

Post meeting note: Previous query about date has been withdrawn. Councillors raised no objections so South Area Committee to go ahead 9 September 2019 as proposed.

The Committee received a report from the Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement. She brought the report up to date by stating a typographical error incorrectly listed the reporting period as February-July instead of June-November.

 

The report outlined an overview of City Council Refuse and Environment and Streets and Open Spaces service activity relating to the geographical area served by the South Area Committee.  The report identifies the reactive and proactive service actions undertaken in the previous year, including the requested priority targets and reports back on the recommended issues and associated actions to be targeted in the following period.  It also includes key officer contacts for the reporting of waste and refuse and public realm issues

 

The following were suggestions for members on what action could be considered for priority within the South Area for the upcoming period.

 

Number	Priority details
1	Enforcement targeted approach to areas where Addenbrookes site joins residential areas such as Hills Road and Red Cross Lane and to work with Addenbrookes to work towards the bus station area being cleaned up.
2	Enforcement to work with the County Council, against utilities and companies that damage the verge on Mowbray and Fendon Road.
3	Enforcement action to deal with bins left on pavements in Anstey Way.

 

The Committee discussed the following issues:

       i.          Needle finds in Trumpington.

 

Action Point: Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement to inform Councillor O’Connell if needle find figures (report P10) had increased or decreased in Tumpington.

 

     ii.          The sharp decline in dry recycling and composting figures.

 

Action Point: Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement to ask Waste Recycling Manager to liaise with Councillor Taylor concerning decline in dry recycling and composting figures.

 

   iii.          Area between Cherry Hinton Road and Rustat Road required cleaning. As did Hills Road slip road between Queen Edith’s Way and Nightingale Avenue.

 

Action Point: Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement to advice Streets and Open Spaces Community Engagement Team of street cleaning issues:

·       Between Cherry Hinton Road and Rustat Road.

·       On Hills Road slip road between Queen Edith’s Way and Nightingale Avenue.

 

   iv.          By-laws may limit possible actions that could be taken against people who parked on verges.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement said the following:

       i.          There was a new team called the Streets and Open Spaces Community Engagement Team (formerly the City Rangers).  The team would work with residents in future. Issues could be reported:

a.    On-line.

b.    To the Customer Access Centre.

c.    To Rangers directly.

     ii.          There has been no change to Ranger numbers or contact details. The South Area Ranger had experienced problems with his phone, so he had not received some messages from residents.

   iii.          Central Government decriminalised leaving bins on the pavement where they could be obstructions. The City Council now had to go through a complicated process to take enforcement action. This required the Council to review the cost/benefit of taking action.

 

Action Point: Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement to advice Councillor Taylor which Public Realm Enforcement Officer will be responsible in future for Anstey Way (when appointed).

 

Councillors queried if priority 3 in the Officer’s report was required.

 

Action Point: Councillors Thornburrow and O’Connell to liaise with Operations Manager – Community Engagement and Enforcement to determine if priority (iii) was still required: Enforcement action to deal with bins left on pavements in Anstey Way.

 

Following discussion, Members unanimously resolved to approve priorities for action as follows:

       i.          Enforcement targeted approach to areas where Addenbrookes site joins residential areas such as Hills Road and Red Cross Lane and to work with Addenbrookes to work towards the bus station area being cleaned up.

     ii.          Enforcement to work with the County Council, against utilities and companies that damage the verge on Mowbray and Fendon Road.