Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register
Recommend the report to Council, which includes the Council's estimated Prudential and Treasury Indicators 2020/21 to 2023/24. Also, to revise any counterparty limits as applicable.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 02/12/2020
Effective from: 05/10/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Council has adopted The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and
Accountancy (CIPFA) Code of Practice on Treasury Management (Revised 2017).
The Code of Practice requires as a minimum receipt by full Council of an
Annual Treasury Management Strategy Statement – including 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
This half-year report has been prepared in accordance with the Code and
covers the following: -
· The Council’s capital
expenditure (Prudential Indicators);
·
A review of compliance with Treasury and Prudential
Limits for 2020/21;
·
A review of the Council’s borrowing strategy for
2020/21;
·
A review of the Treasury Management Strategy
Statement and Annual Investment Strategy;
·
A review of the Council’s investment portfolio for
2020/21; and;
·
An update on interest rate forecasts following
economic news in the first half of the 2020/21 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 Council’s estimated
Prudential and Treasury Indicators 2020/21 to 2023/24 as detailed in Appendix A
of the officer’s report.
Reason for the Decision
As set out in the
Officer’s report.
Any Alternative Options
Considered and Rejected
Not applicable.
Scrutiny
Considerations
The Committee
received a report from the Head of Finance. She advised that
the capital numbers within the report reflected figures in the General Fund
(GF) and Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Medium Term Financial Strategies (MTFS)
relating to the proposed 1000 homes 10-year capital plan and the L2 Orchard
Park development loan.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Asked whether the council had experienced any
cashflow problems during lockdown as he was aware that other local councils had
experienced cashflow problems because of the collection of business rates and
council tax.
ii.
Referred to Appendix D of the officer’s report
which showed the current interest rates and noted that due to economic stimulus
the rates were low at the moment. Referred to item 7.5 and noted that cash
balances had protected the council from certain challenges. He assumed that
target inflation rates would be kept at 2% and asked whether there were any
steps the council could take to protect the real term value of investments.
The Head of Finance said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
The council had not experienced any cashflow issues
because the Government had brought forward significant cash payments
particularly in relation to business rates relief. Cashflow was monitored daily
and it was not likely that there would be any cashflow issues until the
implementation of the capital plan which wasn’t until the new financial year.
ii.
When treasury investment was undertaken, officers
were encouraged by CIPFA guidance to think about investments in a three stage
hierarchy, the first stage was the security of the investment, then liquidity
and then yield. The security of capital sums was the most important
consideration and the risks of investments had to be considered very seriously.
Referred to problems which had arisen with the Icelandic bank loans.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendation.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendation.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Caroline Ryba
To agree the budget strategy and timetable for 2021/22, the net savings requirements by year for the next 5 years, and the revised General Fund revenue, funding and reserves projections.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 02/12/2020
Effective from: 05/10/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
This report presented and recommended the budget
strategy for the 2021/22 budget cycle and specific implications, as outlined in
the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) October 2020 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 2021/22 budget process the range
of assumptions on which the Budget-Setting Report (BSR) published in February
2020 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 2021/22 to 2025/26. All
references in the recommendations to Appendices, pages and sections relate to
the MTFS.
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
ii.
Agree
the incorporation of changed assumptions and specific, identifiable Covid-19
pressures, as presented in Sections 3 and 4 respectively [pages 18 to 23
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 27 refers]
and reserves [section 7 pages 32 to 35 refer] of the MTFS document.
iii.
Note
the changes to the capital plan and funding as set out in Section 6 [pages 28
to 31 refer] and Appendix A [pages 40 to 44] of the MTFS document and agree the
new proposals.
Ref. |
Description / £’000s |
|
2020/21 |
2021/22 |
2022/23 |
2023/24 |
2024/25 |
2025/26 |
Total |
|
Proposals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SC744 |
L2 – Development
loan to CIP |
|
- |
3,400 |
5,200 |
|
|
|
8,600 |
SC745 |
L2 – Equity loan to
CIP |
|
500 |
800 |
500 |
|
|
|
1,800 |
PV554 |
Development
of land at Clay Farm (reprofiling existing spend) |
|
(783) |
49 |
14 |
15 |
705 |
|
0 |
|
Total proposals |
|
(283) |
4,249 |
5,714 |
15 |
705 |
|
10,400 |
iv.
Agree
changes to GF reserve levels, the prudent minimum balance being set at £6.33m
and the target level at £7.59m as detailed in section 7 [pages 32 to 35 of the
MTFS refers] and Appendix B [pages 45 and 46 of the MTFS 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.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Asked for clarification of the officer’s discussion
of reserves as on the one hand she thought the officer had said that reserves
would be used to offset financial pressures but on the other hand that the
council’s reserves would be increased.
ii.
Asked how the reserves could be used over the next
few years considering the challenges which lay ahead.
iii.
Referred to pages 123 – 126 of the agenda and noted
that the scenario analysis which had been undertaken and acknowledged that a
prudent position had been taken. Queried whether pressure had been taken off
the Government by Council’s adopting a prudent approach. Questioned the prudent
minimum balance and whether this would cover the council’s risks.
iv.
Asked if there were more forecast figures taken
from across the council since the figures which were approved at the July
council meeting.
v.
Commented that this was the time when residents
needed to feel the benefit of the council’s good financial management.
vi.
Queried if the council was going to receive any
Covid-19 grant funding and if they were how much this would be. Noted that the
council was currently showing a surplus of money because a few capital schemes
had been deferred. Also asked what the cashflow situation was for business
rates, council tax and commercial tenants.
vii.
Queried why the pay assumption had been increased
from 2% to 2.5% and asked where the narrative was regarding this in the report.
Referred to the statement on p130 of the agenda and asked which service reviews
members should be expecting to hear about. Referred to 3 areas suffering
particular impact because of Covid-19 which included parking, commercial rents
and Cambridge Live and commented that there should be an explanation why the
impacts were being extended into financial years 2021/22 and 2022/23. Asked if
members could see bid from officers regarding ‘unavoidable items’ and whether
these would be included within the budget.
viii.
Referred to section 8 of the
report which looked at new ways of working and maintaining priorities and
noted three interesting bullet points in that section. Asked the Executive Councillor
to explain the directional financial impact of that section for example would
it cost the council money or save the council money.
The Head of Finance said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
She referred to a table on p141 of the agenda which
set out the reserves that the council had and it showed in the 2021/22 column
that the council was using £2.9 million of reserves over the next couple of
years. The prudent minimum balance was shown in the table at the top of p143 of
the agenda and set out the minimum balance that the reserves should be kept at.
The difference between the prudent minimum balance and the council’s amount of
reserves could be used by the council in a number of ways. The council’s
reserves were not increasing; the prudent minimum balance of reserves was being
raised.
ii.
There were a number of options for how the
council’s reserves could be used and it was important to consider how the
council could use the reserves to generate an income. Reserves could be used to invest in a
regeneration project which provided rental income, or a renewable energy
projects which provided climate change benefits and generated an income, to
support the council’s capital programme.
iii.
Setting a prudent minimum balance required not only
officer judgement but also a calculation to support it. Consideration had to be
given to what had happened within the financial year. The Council had seen a reduction in its
income of around £8 - 9 million. There was a Government income compensation
scheme which should reduce this deficit in a substantial way. The prudent
minimum balance would be reviewed on a regular basis and would be reviewed
again in the Budget Setting Report.
iv.
The forecast figures were looked at on a regular
monthly basis, and a detailed end of quarter report was done. The second
quarter report was not available at the moment.
Monthly flash reports were done but these were not as detailed as the
quarterly reports. There was a projected underspend of approximately £2 million
following the interim MTFS which was approved in July 2020.
v.
An application had been made to the Cultural Relief
Fund to cover the costs of Cambridge Live. She had now seen guidance for
claiming for loss of income and had just submitted the initial claim for the
first 4 months of the year. This would be for approximately £2 million but she
noted that as the guidance was general and that MHCLG would be auditing claims
and there was a considerable amount of judgement when claims were
compiled. She expected future claims for
the rest of the year to be a lot lower. As the lockdown eased there were
conditions around what could be claimed and whether these were as a result of
Government guidance or local decisions.
Council tax income had held up but she expressed concerns that impacts
of the lockdown were yet to be seen for example as a result of the end of the
furlough scheme, increase in unemployment and more claims on council tax
support scheme. The Council had been relatively shielded by the losses in
business rates because of Government grants.
vi.
Officer’s view was that a 2.5% pay rise was a
better estimate given the recent pay award. There were a number of service
reviews in progress and a number planned for the future. She would expect to
see the outcomes of reviews of fees and charges, revenues and benefits and
customer services in the budget setting report. The Head of Commercial services
continued to do detailed forecasts regarding income which was based on
assumptions relating to Covid-19, the recovering of the city centre and the
return of full car parking charges. The Head of Property Services had done a
detailed review of the property portfolio on a property by property basis and
what properties might be provide opportunities for improvement or
redevelopment. Cambridge Live had looked at how outdoor events might be
delivered in 21/22 and how social distancing may affect the events. When
preparing the BSR if things are truly unavoidable they are identified as such
in the BSR the challenge is deciding whether something is truly unavoidable or
whether it could be delivered in a different way or were not 100% necessary.
The Executive
Councillor commented:
i.
that
the council was facing very unusual and uncertain circumstances, which included
Covid-19, Brexit and the fair funding review, which meant the council needed to
be prudent in how it considered using its reserves. The Council was not saying
that it would not spend reserves but at the moment careful consideration needed
to be given to the use of reserves so that the council was in a strong position
to face challenges which lay ahead.
ii.
Section
8 of the budget strategy section was alerting people to the potential ways that
the council can move forward and this might cost money initially but the
intention would be to save money in the longer term. The Council will look in
relation to Covid-19 how it can build on the work with the Mutual Aid Networks
and how the council can continue to work with the community.
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.
Lead officer: Caroline Ryba
To enable the Committee to scrutinise the Council's representative on the Combined Authority.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for External Partnerships
Decision published: 02/12/2020
Effective from: 05/10/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The Officer’s report provided an update on the
activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority since the
6 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 5 August and 30 September 2020.
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 made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Noted that the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough
Combined Authority (CPCA) Mayor had joined the Greater Cambridge Partnership
(GCP) Board as an observer and asked the Executive Councillor whether he
thought this would be advantageous.
ii.
Asked if the Executive Councillor shared concerns
regarding the length of time taken with the Cambridge Autonomous Metro (CAM)
project and commented that if the project was deliverable then it needed to
progress but if the project was not deliverable this needed to be acknowledged
as further work on the project could affect work on other planning for
transport projects.
iii.
Noted that the Combined Authority should not focus
solely on dualling the A10 between Ely and Cambridge as there were other
initiatives which were being considered by the GCP.
iv.
Noted the e-scooter pilot scheme the Combined
Authority was looking to promote in Cambridge and raised concerns regarding
parking, distribution and management of the project following issues with
previous 2 wheel hire schemes.
v.
Expressed concerns regarding the abolition of
regional planning structures and asked what was being done by the CPCA Mayor in
response to the White Planning Paper ‘Planning for the Future’ as Mayors were
identified within the White Paper.
The Executive Councillor said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
All the authorities needed to work together to link
up homes, jobs and work whilst also taking into consideration climate change
impacts. The CPCA Mayor had delayed work on the Cambourne to Cambridge link for
9 months because the CPCA Mayor had an alternative route. The Combined
Authority projects needed to link up with the GCP projects.
ii.
Noted that the CPCA Mayor had returned to
technology that the GCP had been working on regarding the CAM project which
involved narrower tunnels as a technical group had identified that the wider
tunnels were unaffordable. He expressed concerns regarding the amount of time
and money which had been spent on the CAM project and also expressed concerns
regarding the transparency of the external company which was being set up to
take the project further.
iii.
Noted that a good outline business case had been
prepared regarding the A10. Expressed concerns regarding the dualling of the
A10 because there was a lot of traffic that used the A10. Referred to work which had been undertaken by
the GCP regarding a northern route rather than a large roundabout linking the
A14 and the A10.
iv.
Noted that the CPCA Mayor had publicised the
e-scooter project but commented that there wasn’t a lot of detail available
regarding the e-scooter project. He
would prefer to see an e-bike trial as he thought these would be more important
in the future to connect homes with employment sites. He shared the concern
expressed by the Royal National Institute of Blind People regarding the
unregulated aspect of e-scooters.
v.
A lot of work had been put into the non-statutory
spatial strategy which contained a lot of good evidence, this included
information regarding the imbalance of the growth in the south of the county
and the disadvantage in the north of the county. He wasn’t clear how the CPCA Mayor would take
this issue forward. Acknowledged it was important that the City Council
responded to the White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’ consultation.
The Committee noted the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
noted the recommendation.
Conflicts of Interest
Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Antoinette Jackson
To approve the initial recommendations from the service review of Customer Services
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 02/12/2020
Effective from: 05/10/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
A review of Customer Services has been carried out to
identify the right service model for the future. The report sets out the findings and
recommendations from the review
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
ii.
Delegated to the Head of Transformation the work
to implement these changes, noting that the staff restructure is subject to
consultation with staff and unions and engagement with tenant representatives
on issues affecting the Council’s tenants and leaseholders, and that the
changes will be signed off by the Leader in accordance with the Council’s
Organisational Change policy.
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 Transformation.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
The report proposed the removal of the cashier
service from Mandela House and Arbury Road, the member asked how spread out and
accessible the Paypoint and Post Office services are for tenants and residents
to make payments. Also asked for a timescale when the website would be updated
to accommodate the provision of more services online.
ii.
Asked how support would be provided to residents to
help them access the online services.
iii.
Referred to page 56 of the agenda pack which
detailed an analysis of complaints via different types of contact. Face to face contact had the best review at
80% customer satisfaction rate compared to email which had a 50% satisfaction
rate. Asked how it could be ensured that the council did not get complaints
about customer service as a result of the proposed changes to the service.
Noted that there were increases in complaints against other services when new
technology was rolled out.
iv.
Acknowledged that the council needed to facilitate
residents being able to access services online but questioned if a person with
an urgent and / or complex query would be able to speak with someone rather
than having to engage with the council online only and that this was an option
available to members of the public early on rather than as the last option.
The Head of Transformation said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
Alternative locations for making payments to the
city council were widely spread out across the city this included high street
banks, post offices and shops with Paypoint services (there were approximately
25-30 locations within the city). Acknowledged that some customers will need assistance
to transition to the new online services and that measures had been put in
place since the early stages of lockdown. The council was in the soft launch
phrase of its customer portal and some services had had online options for some
time (for example council tax and benefits). The website would be updated in
the next few weeks so that customers could navigate to services online better.
ii.
Customer Services Officers would be trained to be
able to offer support to residents to help them access services online. This
could either be on the telephone or by face to face appointment. Assistance could include signposting people
to the portal, helping residents to set up a customer portal account or an
email address and asking questions to draw out what the barriers were for
residents being able to access services online. The trial stage detailed in the
report would be a good intelligence gathering exercise to understand barriers
for people being able to access services online.
iii.
Referred to page 56 of the agenda and the table
showing the GovMetric feedback. The highest volume of negative feedback was
provided by website feedback but she advised that sometimes negative feedback
can be more about the advice provided and not the way in which it was provided
and therefore caution needed to be exercised when considering feedback via the
website. She wanted to ensure that the same high quality of service could be
provided to customers via a new way and customer feedback and insight would be
taken into account in the new design.
iv.
Would be happy to provide a further briefing to
members on concerns raised regarding the detail of the review. A set of
criteria had been agreed to try and identify customers who may require
additional assistance. A trial period was proposed to see how customers
responded to the proposed changes and to allow time for a staff consultation
and to ensure that resources met demand.
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.
Lead officer: Elissa Rospigliosi
To note and agree content of the Annual Complaints Report prior to publication.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 02/12/2020
Effective from: 05/10/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision
The
report provided an analysis of the complaints and compliments received by the
Council during 2019/20 under the Corporate Complaints, Compliments and Comments
procedure.
Decision of
Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources
i.
Approved the
draft Annual Complaints Report for 2019/20, and approved the report could be
published on the Council’s website.
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 and the Business and Development Manager.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Thanked officers for the report and said it was
helpful that the report included more contextual information around the areas
where complaints were counted and assessed as this enabled councillors to
scrutinise the report.
ii.
Referred specifically to the Waste Service and p59
of the agenda and noted that complaints were still at high levels compared with
2017/18 levels. Questioned why complaints regarding bins not being emptied were
treated as a service request and not as a complaint.
iii.
Questioned if the lessons learnt by the Waste
Service could be applied to other services across the council.
iv.
Thought there were greater problems with the
commercial four wheeled bins rather than domestic bins, and wondered if this
was due to cross-contamination or the bins not being put back where they should
be. Asked for commercial and domestic bin complaints to be separated in future
reports.
v.
Acknowledged the good work done by the Waste Team,
which was evident in the £25,000 surplus and was also pleased that changes made
to the service were now coming to fruition.
vi.
The number of complaints regarding the Housing
Assets and Maintenance Department had increased. There were several tenants who were unhappy
with the failure of the service to deliver its programme of maintenance and
repairs. The narrative accompanying the complaint assessment did not adequately
explain why there were a number of complaints.
vii.
Noted a report which was later on the agenda which
talked about digital transformation and the Responsive Repairs Appointing
System which may assist the Housing, Maintenance and Assets Department improve
their service. He asked whether the
system was on target to be introduced in November 2020.
The Head of Shared Waste Service and Head of Housing Maintenance and
Assets said the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
99.82% of bins were collected on time. There were occasions when bins were collected
late and this could be due to staffing issues / road closures etc but crews
would always return to the properties to collect the bins.
ii.
The Waste Service visited resident’s properties 1
and a half times a week and therefore had a huge interaction with
residents. Lessons were learnt from
formal complaints and the number of formal complaints had reduced. Processes had been put in place to ensure
that issues raised through the complaint system did not arise again.
iii.
Complaints made to the Waste Service were now put
at the heart of what the service does. All of the Waste Service Management Team
reviewed complaints to see if there were trends and problems in certain areas.
They tried to find solutions to patterns of problems rather than just dealing
with individual complaints.
iv.
Confirmed the way in which bin complaints were
recorded would be looked at and noted that there had been issues with communal
bins stores and a lot of work had been undertaken with residents in those
communal locations.
v.
Previously complaints regarding the Housing
Maintenance and Assets Service were not always being logged through the
complaint system and staff were instead individually responding to tenants and
meant that officer weren’t always able to see patterns in complaints. She
acknowledged that there had been an increase in the number of complaints and
dissatisfaction with the service and a full-service review had been undertaken.
vi.
It was confirmed that the Responsive Repairs
Appointing System was due to go live in November 2020.
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.
Lead officer: Tony Stead
To establish criteria for entitlement to Discretionary Self-Isolation Payments (above prescribed requirements) to enable awards to be made from 12 October 2020.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation
Decision published: 12/10/2020
Effective from: 09/10/2020
Decision:
Lead officer: Naomi Armstrong
To agree the joint Consultation response for England’s Economic Heartland’s Draft Transport Strategy
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services
Decision published: 09/10/2020
Effective from: 09/10/2020
Decision:
Matter for
Decision: |
To agree the joint
Consultation response for England’s Economic Heartland’s Draft Transport
Strategy |
Why the decision had to be made (and any
alternative options): |
To
provide the views of Cambridge City Council on the consultation. Option 1: To not agree the proposed response to
the proposed response Option 2: To not seek a joint response with South
Cambridgeshire District Council Reason
for rejection: the consultation offers an opportunity to feedback on
proposals which could have significant impacts on planning and
transport in the Greater Cambridge area. |
The
Executive Councillor’s decision(s): |
That the Executive Councillor for Transport and Community Safety agrees
to confirm that the response set out in Appendix 1 of this decision should be
made to England’s Economic Heartland’s consultation on it’s Draft Transport
Strategy. |
Reasons for the decision: |
To
provide the views of Cambridge City Council on the consultation. England’s Economic Heartland is consulting on a
Draft Transport Strategy which runs until 6 October 2020. England’s
Economic Heartland is a Sub-national Transport Body – an organisation which seeks
to provide strategic transport governance at a larger scale than
existing local transport authorities, by grouping councils
together. It represents a region which covers Swindon,
Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire, Milton Keynes, Bedford,
Central Bedfordshire, Luton, Herefordshire, Peterborough and Cambridgeshire.
England’s Economic Heartland represents 5.1m population and 280,000
businesses and works in collaboration with government and partners in the
heartland focusing on strategic infrastructure and identify investment
priorities in the region. Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined
Authority is not a member of EEH but has Associate Member
status. Cambridgeshire County Council is a member of EEH. The key principles of the Draft Transport
Strategy are as follows: • Achieving net-zero carbon emissions from
transport no later than 2050 • Improving quality of life and wellbeing through
an inclusive transport system accessible to all which emphasises sustainable
and active travel • Supporting the regional economy by connecting
people and businesses to markets and opportunities • Ensuring the Heartland works for the UK by
enabling the efficient movement of people and goods through the region and
to/from international gateways. |
Scrutiny consideration: |
The decision is being
made out of the committee cycle as it was not practicable alongside other
work priorities to produce a draft in time for the committee deadline. The
response will be sent to Chair and Spokespersons of Planning and Transport
Scrutiny Committee once a decision has been made giving them 5 days to
comment. |
Report: |
Consultation response
for England’s Economic Heartland’s Draft Transport
Strategy which can be viewed at the link below: |
Conflicts
of interest: |
None known. |
Comments: |
No adverse comments
were made. |
Wards affected: (All Wards);
Lead officer: Chief Executive
This decision relates to specific delegations to the Executive Member for Planning Policy & Open Spaces endorsed by Planning & Transport Scrutiny Committee on 29 September 2020.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 09/10/2020
Effective from: 09/10/2020
Decision:
|
|
Matter for Decision: |
This
decision relates to specific delegations to the Executive Member for Planning
Policy & Open Spaces endorsed by Planning & Transport Scrutiny
Committee on 29 September 2020. The
recommendations were as follows: a)
To note the initial response to the Government’s White Paper (Planning for
the future) consultation as set out in appendix 1. b)
To note the initial response to the Government’s Changes to the Current
Planning System consultation as set out in appendix 2. c)
Agree, for each consultation the wording of a final joint response and/or any
individual response through an out of cycle decision, in consultation with
Chair and Spokes The
purpose of this decision is to approve the final response to the Government’s
Changes to the Current Planning System consultation. A
copy of the report considered by the Planning and Transport Committee on 29
September and all associated documents can be viewed at the link below: https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=475&MId=3790&Ver=4
|
Why the decision had to be
made (and any alternative options): |
The consultation raises important issues
that the council wishes to respond to. The decision seeks to formalize the
response, following debate at the Planning & Transport Scrutiny
committee. |
The Executive Councillor’s
decision(s): |
To approve the proposed response the
Changes to the Current Planning System consultation, as set out in the
documents appended to this decision which can be viewed at the following
link: (Insert link) |
Reasons for the decision: |
Outlined in
why the decision had been to made. |
Scrutiny consideration: |
The Chair and Spokesperson of Planning
and Transport Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being
authorised on 1 October 2020. |
Report: |
A copy of the report considered by the
Planning and Transport Committee on 29 September and all associated documents
can be viewed at the link below: https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=475&MId=3790&Ver=4
|
Conflicts of interest: |
None known. |
Comments: |
No adverse comments were made. |
Wards affected: (All Wards);
Lead officer: Claire Tunnicliffe