Decisions

Update on progress following report to July Committee

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update on the progress to date and proposals in regard to the recovery programme and followed on the update provided to committee in July 2021

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

          Noted the:

 

i)              content of the report and the update on financial support progress

 

ii)             emerging draft strategy and the intention to develop it further with partners and stakeholders before bringing it back to committee

 

iii)           requirement to review the plans for council assets and related activity outlined in section 5.10 to ensure that they align broadly with the vision and principles developed and discussed at committee in January 2021 and also with reviewed partner proposals around wider transport and other related issues

 

Approved the

iv)           in-principle proposals for residual grant funding support and delegated approval of final details, contracting and oversight of implementation and monitoring to the Strategic Director, in consultation with Chair and Spokes.

 

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Committee received a report from the Strategic Director.  It was noted that the grant funding had only recently been confirmed hence the recommendation to delegate to the Strategic Director in consultation with Executive Councillor, Chair and spokes.

 

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

      i.         Important to focus on the impact the pandemic has had on opportunity for young people.

    ii.         Would like to see what the Council is doing outside of the city centre ie in the local neighbourhood centres?

   iii.         Appendix A (Making Space for People Jan 2021) needs to address the changes to retail ie internet shopping.  How will Appendix 2 (Emerging Draft Strategy) gel with both planned Local Plan and Transport Access to City consultations?

  iv.         Is there a clear listing of the urgent risks (and if not the Council’s whose) and prioritising the actions.

The Strategic Director replied on local neighbourhood centres that the Draft Strategy would address this, the current focus on the city centre was primarily because of the Council’s key assets in that area.

The Executive Councillor stated that the work undertaken by officers during this challenging time had to be recognised.  In answering the points, he explained that the Vision was a draft but believed it was better to present where we currently are, to share with the scrutiny committee and interested stakeholders and residents.  The Executive Councillor agreed that disadvantaged young people must be a priority.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved (i, iii, iv) and by 4-0 (ii) 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

 

A joint Area Action Plan (AAP) is being prepared by Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire District Councils for North East Cambridge that will promote future structural change in the layout and land use of parts of the area. This includes new strategic walking and cycling connections; residential use of Nuffield Industrial Estate; the consolidation of industrial uses around the aggregate railhead; and the relocation of incompatible uses.

 

In addition to landowners, developers and other delivery partners, the councils may have a role in facilitating delivery of a new spatial framework for the area. Depending on the circumstances and delivery options available, this may include the acquisition or disposal of land, and may require use of compulsory purchase order powers.

 

To take the AAP to its next formal stage, the councils must be able to demonstrate that the AAP is ‘deliverable’, including ensuring any required land assembly or relocations can be delivered. An ‘in principle’ commitment to delivery of the AAP is therefore sought from both councils to satisfy this requirement ahead of the respective authority’s consideration of the Regulation 19 draft of the Plan programmed for December 2021 – January 2022.

   

This is a not key decision as this report seeks to establish an ‘in principle’ commitment to deliver the AAP; a decision to acquire or dispose of land, or to use compulsory purchase order powers, would be subject to a separate report to outline the specific circumstances, the case for Council intervention, and resource implications.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships

 

i)     Noted that the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan is contingent upon the separate Development Control Order being undertaken by Anglian Water for the relocation of the Waste Water Treatment Plant being approved;

ii)    Subject to (i), agreed that the Council is committed to the delivery of the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan, including land disposal or assembly, and subject to formal adoption of the Area Action Plan in due course, to use its Compulsory Purchase Orders powers if required.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

 

The Senior Planning Policy Officer introduced the report.

 

It was noted that the scrutiny committee and Executive Councillor were not being asked to consider the detail of the AAP.

 

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 Leader of the Council updated the Scrutiny Committee on the issues considered at the last three meetings of the Combined Authority.  Members of the Scrutiny Committee raised points about the use of regulated and un-regulated electric scooters in the city, noting that the Voi trial, which was regulated, had been agreed to continue to March 2022.

 

The Leader undertook to write to the Mayor seeking a wider consultation on pros and cons of the Voi pilot in the city.

 

The Scrutiny Committee noted the update on issues considered at the meetings on 28 July, 25 August and 29 September 2021.

 

Matter for Decision

To seek approval for the council to enter into legal agreements with the UK Municipal Bonds Agency (the “agency” or “UKMBA”) to enable the council to borrow from the UKMBA in the future, should it wish to do so.

 

Decisions of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

i)              Approved the council’s entry into the UK Municipal Bonds Agency’s framework agreement and its accompanying schedules including the joint and proportional guarantee;

 

ii)             Delegated authority to the Head of Finance as Section 151 Officer and the Head of 3C Shared Legal Practice as Monitoring Officer to sign those documents, as appropriate, on behalf of the council;

 

iii)           Granted the Section 151 Officer delegated authority to agree amendments to the framework agreement as appropriate.

 

Noted:

 

iv)           the framework agreement and its schedules, including the joint and proportional guarantee, as set out in Appendix 2;

 

v)             consideration of the council’s financial position and financial standing in section 5;

 

vi)           signing the framework agreement does not make the Council subject to the joint and proportional guarantee or other provisions of the framework agreement until such time it borrows from the agency; and

 

vii)         the assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of entering into the framework agreement in section 6.

 

 

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 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 agree the budget strategy and timetable for 2022/23, the net savings requirements by year for the next 5 years, and the revised General Fund revenue, funding and reserves projections.

Matter for Decision

This report presented and recommended the budget strategy for the 2022/23 budget cycle and specific implications, as outlined in the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) October 2021 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 2022/23 budget process showed the range of assumptions on which the Budget-Setting Report (BSR) published in February 2021 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 2022/23 to provide indicative budgets to 2031/32. 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.

 

It was noted that the budgetary implications of the Depot Relocation reported elsewhere on the agenda and agreed by the Executive Councillor  would be incorporated into an updated version of the MTFS reported to Full Council.

 

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

 

 

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

 

ii)    To agree the incorporation of changed assumptions and specific, identifiable pressures, as presented in Sections 3 and 4 respectively [pages 19 to 30 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 6 [page 36 refers]  and reserves [Section 7 pages 37 to 41 refer] of the MTFS document.

 

iii)To agree the revenue budget proposals as set out in Section 4 [pages 19 and 20 refer].

 

 

 

Capital

 

iv)  To note the changes to the capital plan and funding as set out in Section 5 [pages 31 to 35 refer] and Appendix A [pages 49 to 52] of the MTFS document.

 

v)   To agree changes to the budget for the Meadows Community Hub and Buchan Street retail outlet scheme as set out below.

 

 

 

 

vi)  To agree the replacement of third-party contributions of £210k for the community extension to Cherry Hinton library with council funding.

 

Reserves

 

vii)To agree the transfer of £3.1m and £0.8m of GF reserves into earmarked reserves to support the delivery of the Our Cambridge transformation and recovery programme and to provide a contingency fund for the programme [page 41 refers]. Furthermore, to agree authorisation to draw down funding from these reserves to be as described.

 

viii) To agree changes to GF reserve levels, the prudent minimum balance being set at £6.64m and the target level at £7.98m as detailed in Section 7 [page 39 refers] and Appendix B [pages 53 and 54 refer].

 

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)         Requested clarification on the additional communication posts.

    ii)         Will the Transformation Programme be analysed project by project by Scrutiny/Executive Councillor?

In reply to Members’ questions:

      i)         Officers would provide a note analysing the capacity and function of the corporate communications team and setting out the case for additional communication posts.

    ii)         paper recommending additional communication posts.

  iii)         Transformation Programme projects would be taken to the relevant Scrutiny Committee, along with the necessary consultation with residents, staff and partners.

 

 

The Committee by 4 votes to 0 resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

To approve capital funding and underwriting conditions for funding from the Royal British Legion, for a scheme to extend Cherry Hinton Library to create a new community hub.

Matter for Decision

To provide additional funding to the capital project following the decision by a key partner organisation to withdraw financial support.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

i)              Approved £210,000 of funding from capital receipts or borrowing (according to availability of receipts) in addition to the £282,000 capital funding already approved in the February 2019 budget bid (ref. 100256). This brings the total Council capital funding required to deliver this scheme to £492,000 within a total estimated scheme budget of £767,000.  

 

ii)             Delegated authority to the Strategic Director in consultation with the Head of Property Services and Executive Councillor for Finance & Resources, to approve any leases and associated management agreements for up to 50 years, as may be required for the management of the CH Hub building.

 

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 Project Manager, Community Services.

 

The Committee expressed dismay at the way the Royal British Legion had conducted itself with regard to this project.  Members were supportive that this facility is provided in Cherry Hinton nevertheless.

 

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 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 2021/22;

·    A review of the Council’s borrowing strategy for 2021/22;

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

·    A review of the Council’s investment portfolio for 2021/22; and;

·    An update on interest rate forecasts following economic news in the first half of the 2021/22 financial year.

 

 

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

 

      i.         Approve the Council’s estimated Prudential and Treasury Indicators 2021/22 to 2024/25 (Appendix A of the officer’s report).

    ii.         Approve that the counterparty limit for building societies with assets over £100bn be increased by £10m to £30m (Appendix B of the officer’s report).

   iii.         Approve the changes to the Cambridge Investment Partnership loans in the counterparty list, to bring these into line with the approved expenditure per the approved capital plan (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.

 

In response to a request for further information, the Head of Finance undertook to provide to the scrutiny committee the value of the CCLA Property Fund investment each year since it was purchased.

 

Subsequent to the meeting, the following was provided:

Date	Nominal Value (Cash deposited)	Fair Value
31 March 2015	£10,000,000	£9,434,022
31 March 2016	£10,000,000	£10,000,348
31 March 2017	£15,000,000	£14,534,900
31 March 2018	£15,000,000	£15,225,160
31 March 2019	£15,000,000	£15,461,733
31 March 2020	£15,000,000	£14,908,706
31 March 2021	£15,000,000	£14,802,709

 

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 updated and amended actions for the Council’s Climate Change Strategy.

·       Note progress achieved during 2020/21 in implementing the existing actions in the Climate Change Strategy and Carbon Management Plan.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report provided an update on progress so far in 2021 on the 2021/22 actions of the Council’s Climate Change Strategy 2021-26. As part of this, the report includes an update on progress in implementing the projects to reduce our direct carbon emissions from our corporate buildings, fleet vehicles and business travel as detailed in the Council’s Carbon Management Plan 2021-26.

 

The Officer’s report also provides an update on: 

·                 The council’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2020/21

·                 UK100’s Net Zero Pledge as in Appendix C

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre

      i.          Noted the progress achieved in the first five months of 2021/22 in implementing the actions in the Climate Change Strategy and Carbon Management Plan.

     ii.          Approved the updated Climate Change Strategy action plan presented in Appendix A of the Officer’s report.

   iii.          Agreed to sign the UK100’s new Net Zero Pledge as detailed at 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 Strategy and Partnerships Manager.

 

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

      i.          The Council had approximately 7,000 properties. It was looking at measures to retrofit these to net zero. Residential and commercial properties with the lowest energy efficiency performance would be targeted first.

     ii.          The City Council has lower emissions when benchmarked against neighbouring and similar authorities.

   iii.          Climate Change Strategies of similar authorities have been reviewed to see if the City Council can learn from them.

   iv.          The Environmental Services Team were reviewing the electric vehicle charger trial:

a.    Rapid chargers that took 1 hour.

b.    Fast chargers that took 2-7 hours.

c.    Capacity/resources would determine if/where chargers could be placed in other wards after the trial. The City Council would have to work with power networks and Central Government to implement this, the City Council could not do work on its own.

d.    The pilot would be reviewed after March 2022. The Council would then decide if it would bid for more funding to take action.

e.    The following were needed in order to put in chargers:

1.                   Power.

2.                   Demand for chargers.

3.                   Parking spaces.

    v.          Traffic regulation orders were in place in carparks to ensure only electric vehicles used spaces where chargers were available. Pulse were the company awarded the contract to install and maintain these.

   vi.          A report on Corn Exchange boilers would be brought to committee in March 2022. Gas boilers were installed as the previous ones were at request of failure. The new boilers were more efficient and would have 20% lower emissions.

 vii.          The Council Environmental Awareness e-learning course could be promoted as good practice to other organisations.

 

Councillor Copley said the City Council could better inform residents of the nature of the climate change emergency and how Central Government needed to take action. Personal action was not enough to effect change. For example, housing was at risk of flooding. The City Council could explain that residents could lobby Central Government direct.

 

The Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre replied:

      i.          Agreed that Central Government should take action. The City Council was trying to engage residents on how to lobby Central Government, for example, through Cambridge Matters. Welcomed ideas on how to do more.

     ii.          There were 2 electric vehicle charging point projects:

a.    One with the County Council for on-street parking. Another separate one for City Council carparks.

b.    There had been issues regarding infrastructure in place to support electric vehicle charging.

   iii.          The intention was to insulate all council homes as per the aims of Insulate Britain. It was unclear if this could be achieved by 2025. Sufficient funding from Central Government and a skilled workforce were required to do this.

 

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.

1. Approve the establishment of Visit Cambridge as a legally incorporated destination management organisation
2. Approve the City Council's representation on the Board of Visit Cambridge
3. Approve Visit Cambridge's proposal to appoint an official walking tours partner(s)

Matter for Decision

This paper sets out the work being undertaken by the Council and its partners, Cambridge BID, Fitzwilliam Museum Enterprises (trading arm of the University of Cambridge) and King’s College, to establish a new destination management organisation (DMO), following the closure and liquidation of the former DMO (Visit Cambridge and Beyond) in July 2020. 

 

The four partners had established an DMO ‘working group’ and brand known as ‘Visit Cambridge’, using the former VCB branding and other intangible assets, which they successfully acquired last autumn.  The working group has identified the need for the new DMO to be legally incorporated to enable it to be independent and effectively fulfil its organisational development and management needs, including business banking, entering into legal agreements/ contracts and procuring goods and services to support its DMO function and the recovery and development of a sustainable visitor economy. 

 

The Officer’s report set out the proposed business case for the new DMO and its proposed incorporation as a Community Interest Company (CIC), informed by learning from the former VCB business model performance and the impact of the COVID 19 pandemic on the city’s visitor economy.  The decision to pursue CIC incorporation was informed by independent legal advice sought by both the Visit Cambridge working group and, separately, by the Council.

 

Subject to the Council supporting the incorporation of Visit Cambridge as a CIC, the Visit Cambridge working group is inviting the Council to nominate a representative to sit as a company director.  Based on legal advice and the predominantly operational nature of the DMO business, the Officer’s report recommended the Council nominated an Officer, rather than elected Member, to sit as a Director on the CIC Board.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre

      i.          Approved the establishment of Visit Cambridge as a Community Interest Company (CIC).

     ii.          Delegated authority to the Director of Neighbourhoods and Communities to complete all practical, financial and legal matters to enable Visit Cambridge CIC to be established including approval of the final form of all necessary legal documentation.

   iii.          Approved the City Council's officer representation on the Board of Visit Cambridge CIC, with the officer nominee decision to be delegated to the Director of Neighbourhoods and Communities.

 

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 Director of Neighbourhoods and Communities.

 

Opposition Councillors made the following comments in response to the report:

      i.          It was important to have a fixed place where people could find tourist information in the city.

     ii.          Requested that more than 1 councillor was appointed to the stakeholder group so that representation could be cross-party.

   iii.          Queried how to get a net positive impact of tourism on the city and environment.

 

The Director of Neighbourhoods and Communities said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          An independent Community Interest Company was being set up, it was not for the City Council to dictate to the independent company what it should do. Would pass on councillors’ request that more than one councillor was invited to participate in the stakeholder group, but it was up to the Community Interest Company to make operational decisions.

     ii.          Most tourists to the city were local or from the region. International tourism had declined since lockdown. There were things the council could do to encourage sustainable tourism such as encouraging tourists to stay longer and not make short trips.

   iii.          Tourism was important to the city economy. For example it provided jobs and revenue for cultural venues.

 

The Committee resolved by 9 votes to 0 with 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.

Matter for Decision

The Council uses S106 contributions to mitigate the impact of development on facilities and amenities in Cambridge. Through its 2021 generic S106 funding round, the Council has invited proposals for improvements to open spaces and play areas, focused on those parts of the city where the relevant generic S106 funding is still available.

 

Sixteen proposals for improvements to open spaces and play areas have been received through this 2021 funding round. The Council thanks all those who have taken the time and effort to apply. The proposals have been assessed against the relevant S106 selection criteria. Seven (either in whole or in part) were eligible, affordable and ready to be allocated S106 funding now. A number of other eligible proposals were also being actively considered, subject to S106 funding availability. In addition, three other projects allocated S106 funding in the 2020 round were recommended for additional funding, which has become available.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing

Recommendations i, ii & iv were subject to business case approval and project completion or significant progress within 18 months.

 

      i.          Allocated informal open space generic S106 funding to the following projects (see the assessments in paragraphs 4.1-4.2 and Appendix B of the Officer’s report).

 

Table 1: Recommended 2021 S106 funding proposals

 

No.	Project proposal	S106 funding
2.1.1	Alexandra Garden Rec: additional seating (West Chesterton ward)	£5,000
2.1.2	Jesus Green: seating, benches and additional trees (Market ward)	£13,000
2.1.3	Midsummer’s Common community orchard: improved seating, bins, paths and new raised beds (Market ward)	£15,000
2.1.4	Coldham’s Lane play area: benches, bins noticeboards (Romsey ward)	£10,000
2.1.5	Parker’s Piece tree-planting: supplement for information boards (Market ward)	Up to £5,100
2.1.6	Trumpington Rec Ground environmental enhancements (Trumpington ward)	£70,000

 

     ii.          Delegated authority to the Director of Neighbourhoods & Communities to allocate open space and play area generic S106 funding formerly from Trumpington ward but now in Petersfield, still available for eligible open space and play improvements in Petersfield (see paragraphs 4.3‑ 4.4). This could include some play area improvements at St Barnabas Court play area. These allocations would be in consultation with Petersfield councillors, the Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing, Opposition Spokes and the Chair of the Environment and Communities Scrutiny Committee.

   iii.          Instructed officers to seek detailed updated estimates of the likely construction costs of the Coldham’s Common BMX track improvement project and to take appropriate follow-up action (see paragraph 4.5 of the Officer’s report).

 

   iv.          Allocated additional informal open spaces S106 funding to the following projects supported in the 2020 S106 funding round (paragraph 4.6 of the Officer’s report).

 

Table 2: Recommended additional allocations to existing projects

 

No.	Project proposal	S106 funding
2.4.1	Chesterton Recreation Ground wheelsports project: landscaping (East Chesterton ward)	£15,000
2.4.2	Five Trees open space: wildflower and tree-planting (East Chesterton ward)	Up to  £10,000
2.4.3	Pearl Close play area and community garden improvements (East Chesterton ward)	£5,000

 

    v.          Instructed officers to take a more targeted approach for the 2022 generic S106 funding round to seeking eligible proposals for open space and play improvements from the remaining generic S106 funds, with a greater focus on dialogue with councillors (see paragraph 4.7 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 why Donkey Common (skate park) was not allocated funding? The Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager said the project did not meet eligibility criteria. Offices had engaged with proposers already and signposted alternative streams to s106 where limited funding was left to allocate in Petersfield Ward.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

To approve the S106 Community Facility Grants following assessment of applications received.

Matter for Decision

The Council uses S106 contributions paid by developers to mitigate the impact of development on facilities and amenities in Cambridge. As part of its 2021 generic S106 funding round, the Council has invited grant applications from local groups for improvements to their community facilities (to be made available for wider community use). This has focused on those parts of the city where community facilities generic S106 funding is still available.

 

All six community facilities grant applications received have been assessed against the Council’s S106 selection criteria. Officers recommend two proposals for a grant based on generic S106 funding, while another proposal qualifies for funding from an already agreed specific S106 contribution. Other proposals are either not yet ready for consideration (and could be developed further ahead of the next funding round) or would not be eligible for S106 funding: in the case of the latter, alternative sources of funding have been suggested to the applicants.

 

The use of generic S106 contributions for sports facilities is managed separately from the annual S106 funding round (that is, without an application process) because funding is normally focused on needs identified by the Council’s sports strategies. This report recommends allocating outdoor sports S106 contributions to several projects which could be taken forward soon.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

      i.          Agreed the following community facilities S106 grants and funding allocations, detailed in paragraphs 4.5 and Appendix C, subject to business case approval, project completion or significant progress within 18 months and the signing of a community use agreement (see paragraph 6.1 of the Officer’s report):

 

Table 1: Recommended uses of community facilities generic S106 funding

 

	Facility (and ward)	Purpose	Award
a.	Akeman Street Community Centre (Arbury)	Equipment and furnishings for new centre	Up to £40,000
b.	Trumpington Village Hall (Trumpington)	Disability access and an outside meeting space	£3,450

 

     ii.          Deallocated community facilities S106 generic funding from the following two projects (see paragraph 4.6 of the Officer’s report):

a.    £55,000 allocated to Cromwell Road community meeting space (Romsey) as part of the nursery as it is no longer viable; and

b.    £100,000 earmarked for St James’ Church community facilities improvements (Queen Edith’s) as they are not ready to progress now but have been encouraged to reapply in the next funding round.

   iii.          Agreed the following sports facilities S106 grants and funding allocations, (detailed in paragraphs 5.2-5.6), subject to business case approval, project completion or significant progress within 18 months and the signing of a community use agreement (see paragraph 6.1 of the Officer’s report):

 

Table 2: Recommended uses of outdoor sports generic S106 funding

 

	Facility (and ward)	Purpose	Award
a.	Abbey Leisure Complex (Abbey)	3G pitch enhancement	£100,000
b.	Chesterton Rec. Ground Pavilion (East Chesterton)	Building costs supplement	£54,000
c.	Nightingale Avenue Pavilion (Queen Edith’s)	Building costs supplement	£60,000
d.	Coleridge Rec. Ground fit kit equipment and pavilion upgrades (Coleridge)	Repurposing on an existing allocation for improvements to Coleridge Rec & pavilion.	£70,000 (re-purposed)
e.	Outdoor fitness area at Abbey Leisure Complex (Abbey)	Installation of new ‘kettlebell’ frame alongside existing ‘fit kit’	Up to £20,000

 

   iv.          Instructed officers to place even greater emphasis in the 2022 generic S106 funding round on welcoming applications from local community and sports groups for small-scale improvements to the equipment, furnishings and equipment at their facilities, which could help them to provide additional benefit to their local communities (see 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 made no comments in response to the report from the Community Funding and Development Manager.

 

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 uses S106 contributions paid by developers to mitigate the impact of development in Cambridge. As part of its 2021 generic S106 funding round, the Council has invited grant applications from community groups working with professional artists for small-scale (say, up to £20,000) public art projects in Cambridge. This has focused on those parts of the city where off-site public art generic S106 funding is still available. All eight public art grant applications received have been assessed against the Council’s Public Art S106 selection criteria. Officers recommend six of these proposals for funding (subject to further information to address queries raised on five of them).

 

A further Public Art report would follow in January 2022, focusing on the Public Art Commissioning Strategy and how the remaining off-site public art generic S106 contributions can be used effectively and on time.

 

The January 2022 report will also look again at the progress made by two applicants (for proposals D and H) that require further work to meet the public art S106 selection criteria.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

The Executive Councillor agreed to:

      i.          Allocate generic S106 funding to the small-scale public art project identified in the ‘allocate’ column of Table 1 (as detailed the Appendix), subject to business case approval, a public art agreement and project completion or significant progress within 18 months.

     ii.          Delegate authority to the Director of Neighbourhoods and Communities to allocate generic S106 funding to projects to the small-scale public art projects identified in the ‘delegate’ column of Table 1 (as detailed in the Officer’s report Appendix) that make sufficient progress towards meeting the eligibility criteria set out in paragraph 4.1 by the 30^th November 2021.

 

Table 1: Public art proposals that require further clarification

 

	Small scale public art proposals	Allocate	Delegate
A.	Abbey People’s Creative canopy (Abbey ward)	c.£20,000	-
B.	Birdwood Area Art project (Coleridge ward) Dinky Doors	-	Up to £10,000
C.	Cherry Hinton Brook mural (brook runs through Romsey, Coleridge & Cherry Hinton wards)	-	c.£6,600
E.	Jesus Green community art project (Market ward)	-	Up to £20,000
F.	Living at Mitcham’s Corner (West Chesterton)	-	Up to £12,000
G.	Ride with Pride (City-wide)	-	£18,900

 

   iii.          Instruct officers to seek further details from projects (summarised below and detailed in the Appendix) and work with the applicants to further develop their applications and report back to the next Scrutiny Committee with a further recommendation.

a.    D.      Coldham’s Lane Bridge public artwork (Romsey ward);

b.    H.      Romsey Rec Ground public art installation (Romsey ward).

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee made no comments in response to the report from the Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

A review of certain areas of the Children and Young People’s Participation service.

Matter for Decision

The Play Pods scheme is a chargeable service operated by the Council’s Children and Young People’s Participation service (ChYpPS). It was set up in 2014, in part to raise funds to support other ChYpPS work. However, a review of the service in February 2019, found that staffing costs in fact outweighed any income benefit, and the service has a net annual cost to the Council of £26k. The review also found that, since 2015, only four Play Pods had been delivered to city schools, but eighteen had been delivered to schools outside of the city.

 

On 26th February 2019, the Strategic Director took an operational decision to cease delivery of any more out-of-city Play Pods, and to implement exit routes for schools to secure training support and scrap top-ups from other providers. The loss of anticipated Play Pod income (which offsets some of the net cost) has been managed in year by the ChYpPS service through a staff vacancy freeze.

 

The proposal now is for the Council to cease Associate Membership of the Bristol Scrap Store Play Pods scheme, and to discontinue the ChYpPS Play Pod service from 31st March 2022. There is potentially scope for other associate members to provide a Play Pod service to city schools from 1st April 2022.

 

The Council helped set up the Scrap Store scheme in 1988, and it was initially managed by The Castle Project. In 2000, for viability reasons, the Council agreed to take this on, and it was delivered as a mobile project from community centres. In 2012, Scrap Store moved into a commercial unit, The Box on Barnwell Business Park, under the management of the ChYpPS team.  In addition to providing materials for the Play Pod scheme, city residents could also pay a membership fee to source arts, crafts and play materials at a low cost.

 

Like the Play Pod scheme, one of the intentions of Scrap Store was to raise income to support other areas of ChYpPS work. However, the 2019 review found that, like Play Pods, once staffing costs had been attributed to the Scrap Store, the service has a net annual cost to the council of £46.5k. Even if footfall to The Box were to double, the Scrap Store scheme would still not be able to generate sufficient income to cover staffing costs. The service uses The Box Unit, a council commercial unit at Barnwell Business Park for £5k per year rent, but the council could let The Box commercially to generate £18k income per year. 

 

There are currently 9 staff posts which include an element of delivering either the Play Pod or Scrap Store schemes, or both.  A staffing review is planned to support the council’s corporate transformation programme, and this will include community development, community facilities and ChYpPS services. The review will aim to minimise redundancies and maximise opportunities for staff development and progression.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

      i.          Agreed to cease delivering the ChYpPS Play Pod scheme from 31st March 2022.

     ii.          Agreed to complete feasibility work for a revised scrapstore-style scheme, aligned to support anti-poverty work, and for this new service to be launched as soon as possible in the 2022-23 financial year.

   iii.          Noted the staffing implications.

 

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 Community Services.

 

Councillors requested a change to the recommendation in the Officer’s report. Councillor Porrer said the intention was to remove a ‘hard stop’ to the service.

 

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

      i.          Agenda P96 set out an indicative timetable for when the Scrap Store service would cease. It was hoped there would be a smooth transition not a hard deadline to stop activities.

     ii.          Staff and stakeholders would be involved in developing the new model. It was hoped that the Scrap Store service would be retained in some way during the transition period.

   iii.          Officers wished to invite councillors to input into the work.

   iv.          A progress report could be brought back to committee in March 2022.

 

Recommendation No 2 of p95 of the agenda pack (additional text underlined)

 

Proposer: Councillor Porrer

Seconder: Cllr Copley

 

2: To complete feasibility work for a revised scrap store-style scheme, aligned to support anti-poverty work, and for this new service to be launched as soon as possible in the 2022/23 financial year, having been scrutinised by a future ECSC to allow public and member views to be taken into account, and for the existing scrapstore service to be maintained until a new scheme is approved and launched.

 

The amendment was lost by 4 votes to 6.

 

Opposition Councillors asked what lessons had been learnt if the Council had lost money over 7 years of the ChYpPS service?

 

The Head of Community Services said the following in response:

      i.          Officers working in these areas had provided an excellent service.

     ii.          The review had uncovered higher staff costs than originally budgeted when these ChYpPS services were set up. The trading services now require subsidy rather than contributing revenue. Both have considerable out of city usage. It was not feasible to continue.

   iii.          Action has not been taken earlier due to the focus on supporting the community during the pandemic. There is now an opportunity to evolve the scrapstore project to support other anti-poverty work.

 

The Chair decided that the recommendations highlighted in the Officer’s report should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed recommendation (i).

 

The Committee endorsed recommendation (ii) by 6 votes to 0 with 4 abstentions.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed recommendation (iii).

 

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 has a legal obligation to publish equality objectives at least every four years to assist it in its performance of the Public Sector Equality Duty. The Officer’s report provided recommended objectives and priorities covering 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2024 relating to this.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

      i.          Approved the Single Equality Scheme 2021 to 2024, including the objectives and priorities for the Scheme (Appendix A of the Officer report) and Actions listed for the first year of the Scheme (Appendix C of the Officer report).

     ii.          Noted actions undertaken relating to the three recent council motions around equality and diversity and approve recommended actions to be carried forward relating to them in the new Scheme.

 

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 Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer.

 

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

      i.          Members of the Gypsy and Traveller community:

a.    Needed access to Addenbrokes Hospital.

b.    May not trust the City Council and so not interact with it. Therefore, evidence may not be available for a needs assessment.

     ii.          Queried how to protect women and girls in the city, particularly at night.

 

The Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The City Council was working with South Cambridgeshire District Council to implement phase two of the Government’s Syrian Vulnerable Persons Refugee Resettlement programme. The  Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer would check to see if Afghan refugees were also included in the programme.

 

The Councillor for Communities said she would seek to add Afghan refugees Refugee Resettlement programme after committee.

 

     ii.          A refugee’ needs assessment was undertaken in 2016 which identified there was a need for provision. National legislation issues prevented an identification of exact needs, but the subject could be revisited in the 2022 need assessment.

   iii.          Members of the Black community were 6 times more likely to be stopped and searched than others. Would advise councillors after committee on any updates regarding use of police stop and search powers as details from the Police were not available at present.

 

The Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing said she would follow up issues with the Police after committee.

 

   iv.          There was a community panel to liaise with the Police on the impact of ‘force’ on the community.

    v.          Cambridge City Council employees valued the staff group who reported minority group issues to the Chief Executive. The intention was to do more to assist members of the minority community progress through their careers eg obtain promotion.

   vi.          The Council was implementing the new ‘digital first’ customer services model, ensuring that vulnerable people were provided with opportunities to have face-to-face support from the Council. People could also use the internet or phone to contact the Council. If they wanted other support, face-to-face was an option to cover all needs, not just a lack of internet access.

 vii.          The City Council was an accredited member of the White Ribbon Campaign which was set up to end male violence against women. The Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer would share information with Councillors after committee about the Celebration of Women Event.

viii.          Streets and open space lighting around the city were the responsibility of the County Council.

   ix.          The City Council was working with other organisations to signpost the intersectionality (joined up approach) of its Single Equality Scheme as good practice.

 

Agenda P34: Key priorities and approaches for the Single Equality Scheme 2021 to 2024 Part 4 - For services to consider intersectionality in responding to residents’ and customers’ needs (where groups have more than one protected characteristic that taken together create overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage).

 

The Streets and Open Spaces Development Manager the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Re-iterated that Officers undertook a needs assessment as the first point of contact when visiting unauthorised encampments. Enforcement was a secondary option. Officers tried to build positive relations with the Gypsy and Traveller community.

     ii.          The Traveller community may leave the area to seek winter work. Consultants undertaking the transit site needs assessment will try to interact with the community elsewhere.

 

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 purpose of this decision is to ensure that a timely consultation response is issued to Network Rail’s public consultation on the ‘C3R’ scheme.  This has been prepared on behalf of the Greater Cambridge Planning Service (Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council) and is aligned with the Cambridgeshire County Council and East Cambridgeshire District Council and Greater Cambridge Planning Service (Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council) response.   The Cambridge Re-signalling, Re-lock and Re-Control project (C3R for short) is a proposal to renew the signalling systems in and around the Cambridge area and deliver a modern signalling system to improve efficiency and reliability.   The consultation opens on 1st March 2021 and closes on 11th April 2021: Home - C3R Consultation
Why the decision had to be made (and any alternative options):	The consultation response sets out the requirement for Network Rail to undertake formal pre-application discussions with the Councils, and provides comments from the County Council.
The Executive Councillor’s decision(s):	To approve the proposed response to the public consultation, as set out in the documents appended to this decision.
Reasons for the decision:	See consultation response letter  Document ROD:Cambridge Re-signalling Project C3R Scheme Consultation Response - Cambridge Council
Scrutiny consideration:	The Chair and Spokesperson of Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised.
Report:	Home - C3R Consultation
Conflicts of interest:	None known.
Comments:	No adverse comments were made.

 

Matter for Decision:	This decision relates to specific delegations to the Executive Member for Planning Policy & Transport endorsed by Planning & Transport Scrutiny Committee on 28th September 2021.    The recommendation relating to this item was as follows:   1.      To agree a joint response with South Cambridgeshire District Council to the Government’s Creating a Vision Oxford-Cambridge Arc Consultation as set out in Appendix 1.          The purpose of this decision is to approve the final response to the Government’s Creating a Vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc (Spatial Framework) Consultation           A copy of the report considered by the Planning and Transport Committee on 28th September and all associated documents can be viewed at the link below:   Agenda for Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday, 28th September, 2021, 5.30 pm - Cambridge Council   The response has now also been considered by South Cambridgeshire Cabinet, and the response attached is proposed to be joint.   This decision seeks to finalise the response for submission to government. The response considered by the scrutiny committee and no amendments or refinements were made. However there were a number of questions originally omitted from the report which are now included and detailed below;   ·      Homes in your area (Section 5.3 under Placemaking).   ·      Question: Ensuring the right types of housing are delivered in the right locations to meet the needs of both renters and buyers. For example, family houses, first-time buyers, specialist housing, student accommodation and opportunities for people to build their own homes. [Not important/ Less important/ Neutral/ Important/ Very Important] 4. Increasing the amount and availability of affordable homes within the Arc   ·      Answer: Very Important   ·      Question 8 in the Sustainability Appraisal   ·      Question 1: To what extent do you agree with the key strategic issues and opportunities in the proposed scope for the Sustainability Appraisal of the Spatial Framework? ·      Answer: Strongly agree   ·      Question 2: Are there any other strategic issues and/or opportunities that need to be considered in the appraisal?   ·      Answer: Not enough detail at this stage to provide comment we would urge the Vision to align and consider all issues identified in out own SA which is detailed here. Greater Cambridge Local Plan: First Proposals (greatercambridgeplanning.org)     ·      3. Are you aware of any additional strategic data that we should take into account as part of the sustainability appraisal?   ·      Answer: Not enough detail at this stage to provide comment we would urge the Vision to align and consider all issues identified in out own SA which is detailed here. Greater Cambridge Local Plan: First Proposals (greatercambridgeplanning.org)     ·      Question 4: Are you aware of any additional plans or programmes you think will be important to consider within the sustainability appraisal?   ·      Answer: Not enough detail at this stage to provide comment we would urge the Vision to align and consider all issues identified in out own SA which is detailed here. Greater Cambridge Local Plan: First Proposals (greatercambridgeplanning.org)     ·      Question 5: To what extent do you agree with our approach to the Sustainability Appraisal?   ·      Answer: Neutral   The response has also been considered by South Cambridgeshire Cabinet, and the response attached is proposed to be joint.
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 formalise the response, following debate at the Planning & Transport Scrutiny committee.
The Executive Councillor’s decision(s):	To approve the proposed responses to additional questions for the Creating a Vision for the Oxford-Cambridge Arc (Spatial Framework) Consultation, as set out in the documents appended to this decision which can be viewed at the following link: Agenda for Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday, 28th September 2021, 5.30 pm - Cambridge Council
Reasons for the decision:	Outlined in the report why the decision had been made mgappmh01/ecCatDisplay.aspx?sch=doc&cat=13489&$LO$=1
Scrutiny consideration:	The Chair and Spokesperson of Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the action being authorised.
Report:	Member Consultation Paper. mgappmh-01/ecCatDisplay.aspx?sch=doc&cat=13489&$LO$=1
Conflicts of interest:	None known.
Comments:	No adverse comments were made.

 

Matter for Decision

The City Council has 12 Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) and manages them for wildlife and people. LNRs are a statutory designation local authority can declare in association with Natural England.

 

Officers have been working with the Friends of Logan’s Meadow LNR on a proposal to extend the site’s existing LNR designation onto former sports pitches and an area of adopted land. See appendix A of the officers report  for a location and site plan of proposed LNR extension. Red line demarks the existing LNR designation, green line the proposed extension.

 

A public consultation on the LNR extension and proposed creation of new habitats was widely publicised between 12th October and the 20^th November 2020 and received 460 responses, with an overall support for the proposal.

 

Officers sought authority to formally consult with Natural England on the proposed LNR extension, prior to public advertisement and declaration.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing

Approved the proposed LNR extension to Logan’s Meadow LNR and gave authority for officers to formally consult with Natural England and secure its declaration.

 

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 Environment Service.

 

The Biodiversity Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Play areas and other amenities would be kept. Officers were only asking to extend the Local Nature Reserve Designation over grassland.

     ii.          The aim was to present detailed plans in future on how to engage communities in plans. A good consultation response was received in lockdown.

   iii.          The objective was to present detailed plans in future as a response to the first round.

 

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.

The decision is to approve the draft Biodiversity Strategy for stakeholder and public consultation. This strategy will update the current Nature Conservation Strategy (2006-2026) in response to the declared Biodiversity Emergency.

 

Matter for Decision

In 2019 the City Council declared a biodiversity 1 emergency in recognition of the pressures facing our natural world, both locally and internationally. The Council pledged to review its 2006 Nature Conservation Strategy to meet current legislation, policy, initiatives, and challenges.

 

The Officer’s report was accompanied by a draft Biodiversity Strategy for Council services for the period, 2021 to 2030. The Strategy sets out a series of objectives to guide work and groups actions under three themes:

·       ‘Biodiversity Mainstreaming’.

·       ‘The Core’.

·       ‘Nature in your Neighborhood’.

 

Officers requested Committee approval to consult on the draft strategy between July and September 2021, with a view to adopting a further revision of the Strategy after scrutiny in the autumn committee cycle.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces, Sustainable Food and Community Wellbeing

Approved the draft Biodiversity Strategy for public consultation.

 

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 Environmental Services.

 

The Biodiversity Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The biodiversity checklist was available for all services and departments to take them through project steps.

     ii.          Officers were working with Pesticide Action Network to reduce or eliminate the use of herbicides.

   iii.          Work was undertaken with schools and Cambridge University to educate and engage younger people. Directly eg building ponds or indirectly by trying to support other groups to engage schools.

   iv.          The 2006 Nature Conservation Strategy had 80 projects. It had achieved its objectives. It was recognised the strategy did not have measurable management plans, the intention was to address this in the new strategy and to review management plans with communities.

    v.          Officers now had a baseline to review the status/condition of land in future and percentage gain/loss in biodiversity. Some common land areas had been damaged through historic action so would take time to achieve a ‘good’ status. The intention was to increase biodiversity by ten percent.

   vi.          The new strategy action plan would have SMART objectives and proposed to demonstrate change against a baseline.

 vii.          The list of strategy stakeholders was not exhaustive, more could be added such as resident associations nominated by councillors.

 

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.

 

Decision to agree any potential changes to the current management arrangements following discussions with the Storey's Field Centre Trust.

Matter for Decision

The Storey’s Field Centre, on the Eddington Development in the North West of the City, opened to the public in February 2018 and has been managed under a contract for services with the Storey’s Field Centre Trust (SFCT) by the City Council since July 2016 when the Centre manager was appointed.

 

The initial contract was for a 5-year period which comes to an end on 30 June 2021. The SFCT has recommended an 18-month extension to the existing contract whilst it considers recommendations made during a recent review of the Centre and its operations.

 

The City Council considered this option and recommended approval of this extension to ensure continuity for the Centre and staff during this period whilst changes are considered. It is the officers’ view that an 18-month extension is an appropriate length of time for the Trust to make any necessary decisions.

 

The previous contract was approved by Committee in 2015 and any further decisions after the 5-year period of the contract (which expires on 30 June 2021) required approval by the Executive Councillor.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

      i.          Approved the extension to the existing contract for services for the Storey’s Field Centre for a further 18 months from 1st July 2021 – 31 December 2022.

     ii.          Delegated any further decisions in respect of the Council’s commitments to the implementation of the contract until 31 December 2022 to the Director of Communities.

 

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 Neighbourhood Community Development Manager.

 

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

This was a report on the heating system replacement for Cambridge Corn Exchange. It summarised why an interim gas-based solution was necessary.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

The Executive Councillor noted 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 Culture and Community Manager.

 

Opposition Councillors made the following comments in response to the report:

      i.          Expressed concern that a gas fired heating system was installed as an emergency measure.

     ii.          There was no time to look at other options eg heat source pump) that had a longer lifespan. The gas system would need to be replaced after 9 years.

   iii.          Looked forward to cross-party action to address the issue in future.

   iv.          Welcomed the opportunity to be briefed by the engineer.

 

The Culture and Community Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          It was very complicated to get heat pump boilers installed.

     ii.          Extensive work would have to be undertaken before another type of heating system could be installed.

 

The Executive Councillor said that officers had looked at various heating system options.

 

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 approve a revised and updated Climate Change Strategy and Carbon Management Plan for the period from April 2021 to March 2026.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report presented a revised Climate Change Strategy covering the period from 2021-2026 for approval, following public consultation in autumn 2020. The revised strategy set out the Council’s approach to: reducing its own carbon emissions; supporting residents, businesses and organisations in Cambridge to reduce their emissions; and helping the city adapt to the predicted changes in climate. The revised strategy builds on what the Council has achieved to date, but sets out new ambitions in the context of the Climate Emergency, including working more with residents, communities, businesses and institutions.

 

The report also presented a new Carbon Management Plan for 2021-2026 for approval. The Carbon Management Plan set out in more detail how the Council would reduce its direct carbon emissions from its corporate buildings and fleet vehicles towards net zero carbon.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre

      i.          Approved the Council’s Climate Change Strategy for 2021-2026.

     ii.          Approved the Council’s Carbon Management Plan for 2021-2026.

 

Agreed to:

   iii.          Commit to ensuring that all future reports aid understanding of carbon emissions by providing: both percentages of total emissions and the absolute denominator in ktCO2; a definition of the scope of the emissions referred to; and a clear visual representation of the scope of emissions referred to.

   iv.          In addition to presenting data on carbon emissions that are within the Council’s direct influence, explore the feasibility of quantifying the emissions contained within Council’s policy influence and report to Scrutiny Committee in October 2021.

    v.          Explore the feasibility of measuring the impact of the Council’s future activity on emissions within its direct influence and its policy influence and report to Scrutiny Committee  in October 2021.

   vi.          The council will prepare a list of existing for gas fired heating systems under council control and their remaining expected service life.

a.    Scope: All gas consumers included in Appendix 4 Figure 10 (page 123 of reports pack)

b.    Target date: Next committee cycle

 vii.          In addition, the committee notes the already recognised need to complete an asset management plan for all the council’s corporate building, and additionally recommends that the council ensure the plan addresses the following points:

 

For all systems with less than 5 years life remaining prepare a report on the:

a.    Extent of insulation, heating system or other work required to ensure feasibility of low carbon heating 

b.    Current gas consumption 

c.    Estimated combined costs of remedial work and low carbon heating system

 

Output: Prioritised (by tCO2/£) list of urgent works required to avoid future replacement of existing heating systems with gas fired boilers at end of life

 

Target time frame: 12 months

 

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.

 

Opposition Councillors made the following comments in response to the report:

      i.          The Council needed to do more to mitigate/address climate change.

     ii.          Needed to take more meaningful action as a city and wider area, to do more than the city could on its own.

   iii.          The city should take action and set a good example for other organisations to follow.

 

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

      i.          The Council had a target to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2030.

     ii.          The intention was to reduce direct emissions from buildings and the transport fleet first. Technology options to achieve this were being reviewed eg through the Carbon Management Plan.

   iii.          It was not possible to fully decarbonise all buildings with current technology eg the Council had a gas powered crematorium.

   iv.          The Council was investing in energy efficient measures for housing.

    v.          A report was due in April 2020 looking at how 7,000 council homes could be retrofitted (to various levels) to decarbonise them. (See Housing Revenue Account under remit of Housing Scrutiny Committee).

   vi.          Officers were working with ‘Climate View’ to visualise citywide emissions to break them down into different sectors and then address.

 vii.          Community engagement and work with partners was needed to achieve net zero.

viii.          The Council bid for funding where available to undertake work, but would take action regardless. It would use its resources efficiently as work took high levels of capital investment.

   ix.          The Council planned to use passivhaus standards from 2021 and net zero from 2030. This was phrased as ‘where possible’ in the Strategy as there were constraints on sites the Council proposed to use.

 

The Strategic Director said Housing Scrutiny Committee would review passivhaus standards as it fell under their remit.

 

    x.          The Strategy recognised the Council needed to do more regarding off-setting carbon emissions.

   xi.          Depending on what vehicles were available and most practicable, the Council aimed to use electric and ultra-low emission vehicles in its fleet.

 

The Executive Councillor said:

      i.          The Strategy was work in progress and could be added to over time. A report would be brought back to committee. Consultations and workshops had been undertaken to develop the Strategy.

     ii.          Green investments were separate to off-setting actions.

 

Councillors requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor Summerbell proposed to add the following recommendations (shown in bold) to those in the Officer’s report:

 

Recommendations

The Executive Councillor is recommended to:

1. Approve the Council’s Climate Change Strategy for 2021-2026.

2. Approve the Council’s Carbon Management Plan for 2021-2026.

 

In addition:

 

Amendment 1 for item 6 to read as follows:

 

1.       Commit to ensuring that all future reports aid understanding of carbon emissions by providing: both percentages of total emissions and the absolute denominator in ktCO2; a definition of the scope of the emissions referred to; and a clear visual representation of the scope of emissions referred to.

2.       In addition to presenting data on carbon emissions that are within the Council’s direct influence, explore the feasibility of quantifying the emissions contained within Council’s policy influence and report to Scrutiny Committee in October 2021.

3.       Explore the feasibility of measuring the impact of the Council’s future activity on emissions within its direct influence and its policy influence and report to Scrutiny Committee  in October 2021.

 

Amendment 2 for item 6 to read as follows:

 

The council will prepare a list of existing for gas fired heating systems under council control and their remaining expected service life.

 

Scope: All gas consumers included in  Appendix 4 Figure 10 (page 123 of reports pack)

 

Target date: Next committee cycle

 

In addition, the committee notes the already recognised need to complete an asset management plan for all the council’s corporate building, and additionally recommends that the council ensure that plan addresses the following points:

 

For all systems with  less than 5years life remaining prepare a report on the:

 

2) Extent of insulation, heating system or other work required to ensure feasibility of low carbon heating 

3) Current gas consumption 

4) Estimated combined costs of remedial work and low carbon heating system

 

Output: Prioritised (by tCO2/£) list of urgent works required to avoid future replacement of existing heating systems with gas fired boilers at end of life

 

Target time frame: 12 months. 

 

The Committee unanimously approved these additional recommendations.

 

The Committee resolved to endorse the recommendations as amended by 5 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

Councillor Smith asked for it to be asked for it to be noted that she had been unwell at the Strategy and Resources Committee (and had informed the chair of that but didn't want to make a fuss by broadcasting it more widely), and this had prevented her from giving as effective an answer as she would have liked at that point.

 

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 committee received a report on the Shared Waste Service.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre

Noted 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 Shared Waste Service.

 

The Waste Service Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Undertook to ask the Waste Service Manager to respond to Councillor Healy’s questions about challenges to the service when government support was withdrawn.

     ii.          The Council was in the top third of recycling rates when compared to other local authorities. All councils had seen an impact from lockdown on recycling rates.

 

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.

1. Approve the establishment of Visit Cambridge as a legally incorporated destination management organisation
2. Approve the City Council's representation on the Board of Visit Cambridge
3. Approve Visit Cambridge's proposal to appoint an official walking tours partner(s)

Item withdrawn from agenda.

 

Officers reviewed the paper and identified the need for further work around risk. They recommended not relying solely on the recommendation from Hewitsons Solicitors. The Council had yet to get independent legal advice on the options assessment to see if they agreed with Hewitsons’ assessment.

 

A report would be brought back to committee in future.

Matter for Decision

The Committee received an information report in response to a formal update request from Councillor Payne, Liberal Democrat Spokes for Communities, Climate Change, Environment, Waste and City Centre, on the process for trial, testing and consultation of the demountable stalls proposed as part of the Market Square Project public consultation draft vision and concept design.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre

Noted the information update contained in the Officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Environmental Services.

 

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

      i.          The council was committed to a demountable stall trial. Referred to the March 2021 Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee report.

     ii.          Officers were in discussion with traders to develop a two stage process.

   iii.          The proposed stalls were already being used in other British markets. They would be trialled in the city to see how they would be received by Cambridge traders and the wider community. If the stalls were a success, there would be a larger trial over the winter period.

   iv.          A report planned for October 2021 would set out how the council could proceed over the winter period so the committee could make an informed response to the officer recommendation. (Post meeting note: Report may no longer coming, but comment reflected intention in July committee.)

    v.          Demountable stalls were one part of the market square redevelopment project to renovate the area.

   vi.          Criteria to select the preferred stall design was being developed by officers in consultation with traders.

a.    Two types of stall would soon be placed in the market square for testing.

b.    Officers were looking to see if other types of stall were acceptable in addition to the City B Group.

c.    Officers would invite people to see the stalls in situ and give feedback.

d.    Feedback over the summer and evaluation criteria would shape officer recommendations (to councillors) on how to proceed (or not) with the winter trial.

 vii.          Other markets around the country did not appear to operate on a seven day principle, but did operate for more than one day. So they set up and took down stalls as Cambridge proposed to do.

viii.          Officers would seek technical specification information from stall suppliers, which could be displayed on the trial stalls so people could see and comment.

   ix.          Officers were meeting traders in 1-2-1 meetings to engage them in the process. Phone calls and emails were used where this was not possible. Traders recognised the need to engage with officers.

    x.          Traders could put items on trial stalls to test if these suited trader display needs. The stalls were display models to show types of stall on offer. They would be available for two weeks, so people may prefer to quickly try them out then have a longer trial over the winter (if this trial went ahead).

   xi.          There was flexibility in market square layout to accommodate different traders’ needs eg food versus clothing traders.

 xii.          Costs for stall set up and take down were a future consideration in later reports. It was expected that costs would be passed onto event organisers (who were using the market square instead of traders).

xiii.          Stalls had not been tested to see if they were windproof (eg would not be blown over). Any information in advertisements was indicative.

xiv.          Every market was different. Stalls would be tested in windy parts of Cambridge to see if they were suitable for the conditions. Public safety and the viability of the market were key concerns. The market was unlikely to be open in stormy weather.

xv.          There were no plans to replace the canopies on existing stalls in the near future. Officers were looking at infrastructure and did not wish to make significant capital investment in the market until the project started.

xvi.          Toilet provision would be looked at in the detailed design stage rather than now at concept design stage.

xvii.          Officers were looking at how to make the best use of the market square. The need to set up and take down stalls depended on how the area was used for different events, so stalls may not need to be taken down each day. There were peaks and troughs in sales on trading days so officers would manage when activity could occur to minimise negative impact on traders. Officers would monitor and manage activities in market square space to minimise the impact of one event on another to protect the market and make best use of the space.

xviii.          Officers were reviewing how to accommodate market stalls around the city due to public safety needs in lockdown. They were looking at alternative locations to host market stalls when the market square was being redeveloped.

xix.          A mix of qualitative and quantitative data was expected in response to the consultation. Officers would review and feedback key issues in a future report to committee.

 

The Committee unanimously to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation. She commented:

      i.          Some traders supported the market square project, some did not.

     ii.          The project would look at renovating infrastructure such as toilets. This would disrupt the market so the intention was to do all work at once including reviewing the design of stalls, to improve the market for traders and shoppers.

 

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 has embarked on a major public realm capital project to improve Cambridge’s market square, as the city’s principal outdoor civic space and venue for the Council’s popular seven day a week General and Sunday market.

 

The market square, its associated outdoor public realm and market infrastructure, was not up to the quality standard befitting the city’s international status and profile.

 

The Council’s initial project work has involved an assessment of the issues, needs and opportunities associated with the market square space. Using the site assessment findings, the Council, with the support of specialist design and market consultants, has engaged key organisational stakeholders, including market traders, to develop a proposed vision and supporting concept design plan for the square.

 

The Council was now seeking to go out to a six-week public consultation on the proposed vision and concept design, as detailed in Appendix A and B of the Officer’s report after the local elections in May 2021.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Change, Environment and City Centre

      i.          Approved the proposed consultation draft market square project vision and concept design, as detailed in Appendix A and B respectively, for a six-week public consultation starting in May, as outlined in Section 5 of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Noted the findings of the market square project operational management and outline business case assessment report in Appendix C of the Officer’s report.

   iii.          Agreed not to proceed to the design work on RIBA Stages 3 and 4 until the public consultation was complete and the results had been brought to and approved by this committee.

 

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 Environmental Services.

 

The Executive Councillor and Head of Environmental Services said the market square project should deliver the following benefits:

      i.          Improved market square space.

     ii.          Improved facilities, public realm and waste management.

   iii.          Electrics would be improved which would allow food stalls to be grouped together (which was not possible now).

   iv.          It would be more accessible and easier to clean.

    v.          Should attract more people and so support traders.

   vi.          Looking to restore and improve heritage facilities.

 vii.          Make better use of space.

 

Councillors requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor Matthews proposed to add the following recommendation to those in the Officer’s report:

·        (New ) 2.3 Not to proceed to RIBA Stages 3 and 4 until the public consultation is complete and the results have been brought to and approved by this committee.

 

Councillor Moore proposed revised wording (as agreed with Councilor Matthews):

·        (New ) 2.3 Not to proceed to the design work on RIBA Stages 3 and 4 until the public consultation is complete and the results have been brought to and approved by this committee.

 

The Committee unanimously approved this additional recommendation.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations as amended.

 

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.