Decisions

Matter for Decision

This report provided an update regarding the Local Development Scheme (LDS), which was a timetable to produce  a new or revised development plan documents that set out the planning policy framework for Greater Cambridge.

 

The LDS was prepared jointly between South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridge City Council as the plans in preparation are both joint plans for the authorities’ combined area.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

      i.          Agreed the Greater Cambridge Local Development Scheme (local plan timetable) 2025 at Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report be confirmed as the Local Plan Timetable

     ii.          Approved the Greater Cambridge Local Development Scheme (local plan timetable) 2025 be shared with Government and be published on the Greater Cambridge Planning website, superseding the Greater Cambridge Development Scheme 2022.

 

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 Planning Manager.

 

In response to comments from Members, the Strategic Planning Manager, the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development and Executive Councillor said the following:

      i.          Noted the comment that extending the Plan period seemed  sensible to accommodate the growth required.

     ii.          Members would be kept informed as Officers moved forward with the Local Plan preparation to produce a Plan which could be submitted to the Sectary of State by December 2026

   iii.          The Government were aware of key issues that sat behind the emerging Local Plan through the Cambridge Delivery Company, discussions with the Combined Authority and other external stakeholders.

   iv.          In all the engagement, opportunities were being taken to highlight the work on the emerging Local Plan and issues raised, with Ministers, through the CPCA and the Water Scarcity Group

    v.          Had stressed the significance of the decision on the Development Consent Order as part of Cambridgeshire’s growth ambition with all external partners.

   vi.          Would expect to bring a report on progress at a future meeting.

 vii.          The proposal to submit the Greater Cambridge Local Plan by the end of December 2026, was not just about the proposed sites in the area but highlighted the Council’s policies, standards and quality. Would continue to engage with South Cambridgeshire District Council and opposition parties on this work.

 

The Committee voted unanimously to endorse the Officer recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Transport approved the recommendations.

 

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

None.

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update on the East West Rail (EWR) Development Consent Order (DCO) as well as setting out details and proposing the Council response in respect of the non-statutory consultation currently being undertaken by East West Rail Co., which commenced on 14 November 2024 and is due to end on 24 January 2025.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

      i.          Noted the commencement of the non-statutory consultation for the EWR project, which began on 14 November 2024 and will continue until 24 January 2025.

     ii.          Agreed that the content of the Officer’s report and the schedule of feedback/responses (Appendix B) would comprise the formal consultation response from the Council, and delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Economic Development to submit the report on behalf of Cambridge City Council subject to any changes made by the Executive Member and any minor amendments required in the interests of accuracy or clarity.

 

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 Planning Manager.

 

In response to comments from Members Principal Planner, Strategic Sites (EWR DCO Lead) responded:

      i.          Noted the list of comments made by Councillor Porrer.

     ii.          Officers were actively encouraging East West Rail to engage with residents.

   iii.          Would be providing feedback to East West Rail on the lessons learnt  from the process so far, both positive and negative.

   iv.          One of the lessons learnt from earlier rail project implementation in  Buckingham, was that honesty was the best policy with residents and businesses. If there was going to be disruption for several weeks, it was important to tell the truth, so those effected could plan for such things.

    v.          Noted the comment that a second entrance to Cambridge main station would be welcomed and would be of considerable use to those living in Romsey Ward; a station in Cherry Hinton was very much needed.

   vi.          Comments in the response had been collated from technical officers which could be expanded upon in dialogue with the EWR team, these also requested additional detail on some of those mitigation requirements.

 vii.          As the project progressed, and further engagement took place, Officers would push for a more intense  dialogue between East West Rail and the host authorities.

viii.          Would take on board all the comments raised by the Committee and would discuss further with the Executive Councillor.

   ix.          The response would be updated and amended to reinforce the comments made where necessary.

    x.          Would continue to encourage as many people to respond to the consultation as possible.

   xi.          The proposal showed from Cambridge Station along the existing line to Cherry Hinton a turn back, which was currently a single line, however, had noted it was previously a twin track.

 xii.          There was a Cambridge East Station in the  Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) strategic vision so hoped that this proposal would become reality.

 

The Committee voted unanimously to endorse the Officer recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Transport approved the recommendations.

 

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

None

Matter for Decision

The report referred to the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) for Greater Cambridge 2023-2024.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

      i.          Agreed the Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) for Greater Cambridge 2023-2024 (included as Appendix A) for publication on the Councils’ websites.

     ii.          Delegated any further minor editing changes to the Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council, Authority Monitoring Report for Greater Cambridge 2023-2024 to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Senior Policy Planner.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Senior Policy Planner, Planning Policy Manager and Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development said the following:

 

      i.          Did not believe that the AMR had implications for the Duty to Cooperate. The AMR reported on the progress that the Council had made on the Duty to Cooperate.

     ii.          The total number of new houses built in Cambridge during the report period was low. The annual Housing Trajectory Report had predicted a smaller figure, so this was no surprise to Officers.

   iii.          This reporting period was always going to record a low number of completions, there were some schemes that had been completed the year before, with other schemes not yet started.

   iv.          The Housing Trajectory Report did anticipate high levels of growth in future years. Officers had begun the process of updating the housing trajectory for next year. The Government’s new housing targets for Cambridge and the surrounding areas would have significant implications for the Council’s ability to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply going forward.

    v.          Officers would be writing to all developers of schemes of ten or more dwellings requesting profiles of their buildout rates to update the HJR.

   vi.          The Housing Trajectory Report would show site by site where and when housing completions were expected. The current report demonstrated that the Council has a five-housing land supply which meant planning policies could be considered up to date.

 vii.          Most permissions (planning applications) had applied water related conditions. Officers had looked at the few applications where conditions relating to water had not been applied. Some had gone to successful appeal and the Inspector had not applied the condition when the Council would have done. The remainder were a small number of holiday lettings where it had not been appropriate to apply the water conditions and single dwellings.

viii.          Therefore, the total number of new houses in the reporting period which had been conditioned regarding water was higher than 90%. There were only two non-residential permissions where water conditions had not been applied as one was for temporary use and the other due to its small size was deemed not appropriate.

   ix.          The water conditions had been applied to all strategic sites.

    x.          The purpose of the AMR was to demonstrate how effectively Local Plan policy was working.

   xi.          The AMR highlighted the changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the importance of the Council’s planning committees and services which continued to find ways to support the delivery of new homes, including affordable homes in the City rather than just South Cambridgeshire.

 xii.          The Housing Trajectory Report and AMR could be viewed at the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning website on the monitoring page at the link: Monitoring delivery in Greater Cambridge

xiii.          District centres within Cambridge were being monitored by Officers. There had not been any significant deterioration in this area.

xiv.          It was difficult to monitor the change of use for retail units as some changes of use no longer required planning permission.

xv.          Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Needs Assessment had been completed. Work was being undertaken to look at potential sites and stopping places.

xvi.          More recent engagement with the Government through the Cambridge Delivery Company continued to explore how the Council could be more confident in the future delivery of affordable and new house and the appropriate infrastructure.

xvii.          A report will be presented at the February meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee which would provide an update on the Cambridge 2050 project.

xviii.          In response to questions around why fewer Neighbourhood Plans were coming forwards in the City Council area, officers expressed a view that that it was potentially  easier to develop a neighbourhood plan in a rural location where there was a parish council who were able to start the plan process. In a non-parish area, there had to be a group of people who were willing to work together and organise a neighbourhood development order in the first instance.

xix.          Neighbourhood Plans sometimes come forward because those in the local area had specific planning objectives that they were seeking ot deliver beyond those set out in the adopted Local Plan. Therefore, the lack of Neighbourhood Plans in Cambridge was not necessarily a bad thing.

xx.          Noted the comment that it was important to ensure that growth was sustainable.

 

The Committee voted unanimously to endorse the Officer recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Transport approved the recommendations.

 

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

None

 

To adopt the North Cambridge Design Code Supplementary Planning Document.

The purpose of the report was to seek approval to adopt the Cambridge Neighbourhoods Design Code for Arbury Kings Hedges and parts of West Chesterton as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

      i.          Considered the main issues raised in the public consultation, agreed responses to the representations received and agreed proposed changes to the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) as set out in the Statement of Consultation (appendix 01 of the Officer’s report).

     ii.          Subject to (i), adopted the amended Cambridge Neighbourhoods Design Code SPD for Arbury, Kings Hedges and Parts of West Chesterton, March 2025 (appendix 02 of the Officer’s report).

   iii.          Delegated to the Joint Director of Planning, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure, the Chair and Spokes for the Planning Policy and Transport Scrutiny Committee, the authority to make any necessary editing changes to the SPD prior to publication.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Built Environment Team Leader.

 

In response to comments from Members the Built Environment Team Leader and the Executive Councillor said the following:

 

      i.          Noted the request to avoid  having blank walls at the end of a facade, as a blank wall usually encouraged unsolicited graffiti.  SPD wanted to encourage more active uses of blank walls throughout public spaces and at the end of terraced houses.

     ii.          Developers were expected to take account of the detailed design of buildings including the accessible letterboxes as referenced in the character chapter of the Design Code.

   iii.          The SPD would be reviewed through the Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). The impact of the Design Code would also be assessed based on the outcome of planning applications received for the area.

   iv.          The project team had carried out different types of public engagement, in person and online to try and capture local views. Did not expect members of the community to come to Officers, but instead Officers tried to go out into the community with the project.

    v.          Officers had engaged with local schools on numerous occasions, engaging with the young people as the occupiers and users of houses in the future;   working with schools through the Planning Department’s Youth Engagement Service was also aimed at extending  engagement  to the student’s families.

   vi.          Local resident groups had also been consulted several times through various platforms.

 vii.          Producing a Design Code which was area based and did not have a Master Plan was instead focused upon receiving views from residents to identify priorities that were important to those who lived, worked or studied in the area.

viii.          The Design Code had been led by a series of phased  consultations. The first phase asked residents what they liked and didn’t like about the area through an online and in person survey.  The key principles were then drafted and through a series of consultations asked if they were the right principles. Once the responses had been received to the suggested principles, more detail had been added to formulate the document itself.

   ix.          Would be difficult to provide a breakdown of percentages for favourable and non-favourable responses as there had been many phased consultations over a year and a half from initial concept ideas through to support on the principles, consulting on the detail informally and then formally.

    x.          There had been approximately three hundred responses submitted with different levels of responses to each question.

   xi.          Agreed there could be lessons learnt such as the length and size of the document.

 xii.          Noted it would be interesting to see how this SPD and the newly adopted South Newnham Local Plan would be used for schemes coming forward and if these would encourage better place making.

xiii.          Taking the Design Code forward as an SPD would be the first step of validating the document.

xiv.          Officers wanted to make sure that the SPD would be used by developers and the community for designing schemes coming forward. For Planning Officers to scrutinise and assess these schemes using the SPD as an aid.

xv.          Through the new emerging Local Plan process, all SPD’s may have to be reviewed, and amendments made if necessary.

 

The Committee voted unanimously to endorse the Officer recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Transport approved the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor thanked the Officers for all their hard work and looked forward to seeing how this would improve planning applications.

 

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

None

 

The report referred to the Health Impact Assessment (HIA) Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) that provided guidance on the implementation of policies within the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2018) and the Cambridge Local Plan (2018) with regards to the assessment and consideration of health impacts for some types of new development in Greater Cambridge.

 

The planning and design of the built environment had a major influence on human health and wellbeing and a HIA provides a structured way of assessing the prospective health impacts of a development on all parts of the community and ensuring that any potential negative impacts are avoided or minimised and that positive impacts are maximised.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

      i.          Considered the main issues raised in the public consultation, agreed responses to the representations received, and agreed proposed changes to the Health Impact Assessment Supplementary Planning Document as set out in the Statement of Consultation (Appendix A of the Officer’s report).

     ii.          Subject to (i), adopt the amended Health Impact Assessment Supplementary Planning Document (Appendix B of the Officer’s report).

   iii.          Agreed to delegate to the Joint Director of Planning in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure and Chair and Spokes the authority to make any subsequent material amendments and editing changes to the SPD prior to publication.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Policy Planner.

 

In response to comments from Members the Policy Planner and the Joint Director for Planning and Planning Policy Manager said the following:

      i.          Officers had used and adapted (with permission) the Healthy Urban Development Unit checklist (HUDU) which was a document to create healthy sustainable communities and ensured that new developments were planned with health in mind. 

     ii.          There were HIA SPD’s which had been rolled out with Local Authorities in London, Birmingham, Brighton and Hove, these were becoming more prevalent in practice, particularly after Public Health England had published their national guidance in 2020.  

   iii.          It had been important to make sure that the SPD had been relevant and in context to the local area.

   iv.          Officers did not believe that it was appropriate for the SPD to address issues such as banning smoking in public places.It would be very difficult to ban smoking through an SPD as there were other legislative provisions outside the Planning Acts with primary responsibility for addressing this issue.

    v.          Matters of air quality were picked up through the Environmental Health Team, such as, when looking at contaminated land and the compatibility of neighbouring land uses when considering the environmental impacts of new developments.

   vi.          It was essential for all developers to consider and note the significance and importance of health in their developments. The SPD highlighted the importance of mental health in the design process and expectation was that developers would take this into consideration for new developments.

 vii.          The SPD underlined how people in the local area and existing local communities could benefit from a new development, through a sense of community, community facilities, green spaces and the quality of environment.

viii.          There had been a push for increased references to delivering healthy spaces in planning which had broadly derived post pandemic.

   ix.          Limits and thresholds referenced in the SPD had been based on policy thresholds. The existing adopted Local Plans outline different  thresholds for a HIA between the City and South Cambridgeshire District Council. With the emerging Local Plan, the limits and thresholds would be revisited.

    x.          Monitoring would be through the Annual Monitoring Report and conversations were being held on the monitoring of the effectiveness of policies. 

 

The Committee voted unanimously to endorse the Officer recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Transport approved the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor again thanked the Officers for all their work on this document.

 

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

None

 

The report referred to the Greater Cambridge Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) which set out the approach, policies and procedures taken by Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council in respect of the use of planning obligations.

 

 

 

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

      i.          Considered the main issues raised in the public consultation, agreed responses to the representations received, as set out in the Statement of Consultation (Appendix A of the Officer’s report).

     ii.          Agreed that revisions to the draft Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and additional evidence be prepared, and a decision on revisions be taken by the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure in consultation with Chair and Spokes.

   iii.          Agreed that subsequent to those revisions, an additional public consultation be carried out in summer 2025 on the amended draft SPD and supporting evidence.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Planning Policy Manger

 

In response to comments from Members the Planning Policy Manager and S106 Officer said the following:

      i.          Noted the comment that the preference would be for biodiversity net gain wherever possible provided on site, or near to a site.

     ii.          Officers had been careful with the wording on the matter of biodiversity as this SPD could not to change the Council’s Planning Policy on biodiversity. There was already a separate Biodiversity SPD but would revisit the wording to ensure that the references were clear to the Council’s approach on biodiversity net gain.

   iii.          Nursey provision was a private enterprise but there were elements of the subject matter picked up in the education cost.

   iv.          No date had been set for further public consultation as outlined in the recommendation but hoped this could be achieved in the summer term. 

    v.          The premise of the S106 monitoring contribution was to ensure that the costs in relation to administration of the agreement were fully covered. It was important that only the costs were covered.

   vi.          A charging regime had been put forward to address infrastructure costs and the Council had received considerable representations on this matter which was being reviewed by Officers. It was important to ensure that developers were not paying more than was necessary.

 vii.          Noted the comment that all charges should be linked to inflation.

 

The Committee voted unanimously to endorse the Officer recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Transport approved the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor again thanked the Officers for all their work on this document.

 

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

None

 

The report referred to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document which set out the guidance on the implementation of policies within the Cambridge Local Plan (2018) and the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2018) regarding future development at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus.

 

The SPD set out planning principles to guide future development proposals at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and provided a planning framework for consideration when determining planning applications.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure

      i.          Considered the main issues raised in the public consultation, agreed responses to the representations received, and agreed proposed changes to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document as set out in the Statement of Consultation (Appendix A of the Officer’s report).

     ii.          Subject to (i), adopt the amended Cambridge Biomedical Campus Supplementary Planning Document (Appendix B of the Officer’s report).

   iii.          Agreed to delegate to the Joint Director of Planning in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Infrastructure and Chair and Spokes the authority to make any subsequent material amendments and editing changes to the SPD prior to publication.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Principal Policy Planner.

 

In response to comments from Members the Principal Policy Planner, Joint Director of Planning, Team Leader (Planning Policy and Strategic Planning) and Executive Councillor said the following:

      i.          Understood the delivery, phasing and mechanisms to ensure that deliveries were carried out effectively on the campus. The emerging Local Plan would also look at the use of logistic hubs for deliveries and how the site could work more efficiently

     ii.          Would amend principle 4b 3.1 of the SPD to include reference to nursey provision. 

   iii.          Confirmed that CBC referenced in the comments was CBC Limited.

   iv.          Members of the Planning Committee and Joint Development Control Committee had expressed frustration when considering individual applications that there was not a Master Plan. This SPD should help to bring cohesion to the development of this important area, but did not replace the need for a Master Plan. 

    v.          There were limitations of what could be included in an SPD as new policy could not be added, but the Council could encourage and support good practice..

   vi.          The emerging Local Plan would also pick up on transport issues exploring movement to and around the site.

 vii.          The SPD was also limited to what could be included as it had to follow the adopted Local Plan versus the ambitions of the emerging Local Plan.

viii.          Officers were working with the Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA), as the transport authority, and other external partners such as the Greater Cambridge Partnership, to look at, and model, the transport consequences for the biomedical campus. This would manifest itself into the emerging Local Plan.

   ix.          Removing unnecessary trips to the campus through the development of accommodation on the site or development of consolidation hubs might form a part of the subsequent may be part of the  transport strategy being developed by CPCA to address existing congestion challenges.  

    x.          The SPD should be used to aid development control decisions in the short term.

   xi.          Officers were working with Housing colleagues from Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council to explore the potential housing options to meet some of the Campus housing needs.

 xii.          Officers did not anticipate any housing schemes being brought forward ahead in the short term (potentially of the adoption of the Local Plan).

 

Councillor Blackburn-Horgan (Ward Councillor for Queen Edith's) spoke in support of the SPD.

 

The Committee voted unanimously to endorse the Officer recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control and Transport approved the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor again thanked the Officers for all their work on this document

 

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

None

 

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report provided an update on the implementation of the herbicide-free weed management programme for Cambridge. It outlined the planned work programme and the accompanying communications strategy to ensure effective delivery and public engagement.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services

      i.          Approved the work programme (appendix A) to ensure systematic implementation across all wards.

     ii.          Approved the communications plan (appendix B) to support public engagement and transparency.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

See Officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Strategic Delivery Manager.

 

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

      i.          Officers expected to visit wards one or more times per year to undertake deep clean work. Details would be put on the city council website and communicated to Ward Councillors.

     ii.          Deep cleans would be undertaken in addition to general clear up work. Officers preferred to follow a program of work, but could deviate from this if necessary. Various stakeholders such as On The Verge were proactive in communicating issues such as weeds in gutters.

   iii.          People could report areas that needed cleaning through a form on the City Council website.

   iv.          The City Council was proactive in its communication about work to manage stakeholder expectations.

    v.          The City Council would consider supporting other organisations in future clean-up work as a possible revenue stream (for provision of a clean-up service using City Council staff/expertise) or to help volunteers, but would focus on City Council needs in the short term.

   vi.          Noted Councillor concerns that it was difficult to liaise with the Highway Agency to cone off parts of roads for a deep clean, but work was undertaken quickly when it went ahead.

 vii.          Herbicide free methods were sustainable in the long term. There were time/financial costs in the short term. As technology changed, cheaper electrical versions of equipment should become available that were prohibitively expensive at present, such as electric vehicles to replace diesel ones.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

This report provides an update for the Scrutiny Committee, Executive Councillor and ward councillors on the current position with the Council’s Environmental Improvement Programme (EIP), considers several options available to the Council, and makes recommendations around future delivery and focus through 2025/26.

 

The report included an outline and critique of how other Councils delivered similar programmes of environmental enhancement, and how Cambridge’s programme might be further adapted to provide additional value to the Council and communities.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services

Agreed to:

      i.          Support continuation of the Council’s Environmental Improvement Programme (EIP), based on a combination of projects in delivery, those committed and substantially developed, and those committed that still offer value to the Council and will proceed when capacity allows (Appendix A of the Officer’s report, Tables 1 and 2).

     ii.          Support the allocation of remaining available funds to increase budgets for those already committed projects that would benefit from and can be delivered with a funding top-up (Appendix A, Table 3).

   iii.          Support discontinuing with those previously committed projects that were proving difficult to implement or no longer offer good value to the Council (Appendix A, Table 4).

   iv.          Support a further review of EIP delivery, and focus, through 2025/26, identifying where existing committed schemes might be further discontinued; and how the programme might be further adapted to continue to provide good, and additional value to the Council.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

See Officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Projects Officer.

 

The Technical & Specialist Services Manager and Projects Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Other local authorities had different funding models so could be more flexible in how they delivered EIP projects than Cambridge City Council.

     ii.          The intention was to allocate funding to projects that could be completed. The intention (as per recommendation iii) was to stop projects that could not be delivered.

   iii.          Ward based EIP information could be sent to Ward Councillors to show how projects were progressing.

 

Councillors requested a change to the recommendations. Councillor Divkovic proposed amending recommendation (iii) in the Officer’s report:

 

Support discontinuing with those previously committed projects that were proving difficult to implement or no longer offer good value to the Council (Appendix A, Table 4).
** Officers to review whether N3 – 2023 - Hazelwood Close seating installation should be removed from the recommendation.

 

Reason: Officers to check if seating already ordered and installed. Project to go ahead if so.

 

The Committee approved this additional recommendation nem con.

 

Post Meeting Note: Officers confirmed the amendment was not applicable. The project in question was confused with another EIP project which has since been delivered.

 

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.

 

a.    Note progress made relating to the previous equalities objectives in the Single Equality Scheme, which covers the period between 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2025.

b.    Approve equalities objectives for 2025/26 and key priorities relating to them.

c.     Approve the updated Comprehensive Equalities and Diversity Policy.

d.    Note the content of discussions relating to the Disabled People’s Manifesto that were held at the Equalities Panel meeting in July 2024 and associated activity to support disabled people based on themes raised.

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report sought approval of new equalities objectives applicable from 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2026 to meet our statutory requirement to produce one or more equality objectives at least every 4 years. The report also meets the council’s legal obligations to publish information on general Public Sector Duty compliance regarding people affected by the council’s policies and practices every year. It does so by reporting back on progress relating to activity of services across the four years of the Single Equality Scheme that set out the council’s objectives between 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2025 (see Appendix A of the Officer’s report).

 

In addition, the Comprehensive Equalities and Diversity Policy has been updated in line with the council’s transformation (see Appendix B of the Officer’s report), which needs approval.

 

Finally, the report feeds back on the conversation on the Disabled People’s Manifesto at the Equalities Panel in July 2024, as was committed to at Full Council in May 2024 (see section 4.6 of the Officer’s report).

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

      i.          Noted progress made relating to the previous equalities objectives in the Single Equality Scheme, which covers the period between 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2025 set out in Appendix A.

     ii.          Approved equalities objectives for 2025/26 and key priorities relating to them set out in section 4.5 of this report.

   iii.          Approved the updated Comprehensive Equalities and Diversity Policy at Appendix B.

   iv.          Noted the content of discussions relating to the Disabled People’s Manifesto that were held at the Equalities Panel meeting in July 2024 and associated activity to support disabled people based on themes raised. This was set out in section 4.6.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

See Officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Equality & Anti-Poverty Officer.

 

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

      i.          The City Council was a key partner in the Community Safety Partnership to address hate crime etc. It undertook a lot of partnership working such as obtaining Purple Flag status for the city.

     ii.          In order to address the diverse health and wellbeing needs of city residents, the City Council worked with different partners to address different groups’ equality needs to learn directly from each group eg elderly, homeless etc.

   iii.          Referred to paragraph 5 on P147, there was a perception that larger firms seemed to find it easier to win contracts than smaller firms. Issues had been discussed with the Procurement Officer. A social value framework was being developed to inform contractors of City Council expectations. Undertook to liaise with Councillor Ashton on this after committee.

 

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 report was being presented to update Members and conclude the on ongoing work to review the Council’s leisure provision of facilities and services and gain authority to retender Council leisure services.

The review highlights the opportunities to deliver even more cost-effective services in the future and the rationale behind this, as well as the opportunities for contract update, modernisation and expansion, all of which contribute to improved cost efficiencies, and drive the delivery of even greater social value.

 

This review of leisure services has required consideration of:

·       What the Council’s core leisure offer should comprise.

·       Rationalisation of current facilities and provision if these were no longer required, or assessed not to be fit for purpose.

·       Opportunities for alternative and modernised service provision to inform future capital investment and to meet the city and sub regions’ changing demands or growth in demand.

·       Opportunities for education, community, and commercial providers to join in the future for management of their leisure facilities.

·       Models that could help the council to achieve financially sustainability, and accessible leisure provision, in a challenging financial climate.

·       Different operating models and management options where appropriate, including community asset transfer, in-house delivery, arms- length trust and external contract (s), and any other arrangements that could be considered.

·       In the context of changing leisure trends and demands, the need to make savings to the Council’s revenue budgets.

·       The need to increase levels of physical activity in the community and contribute to a reduction in health inequalities.

·       Partnership opportunities for engaging and delivery of interventions and health improvement programmes with Public Health.

 

Decisions were needed on:

·       To continue with an outsourced contract arrangement.

·       The principles and ethos underpinning future contract scope and timescales.

·       The length and scope of the immediate next contract.

·       Financial envelope available.

·       To extend opportunities both inside and outside of the city boundaries to other local providers, school academies and local authority facilities to join the contract for facilities management.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Community Safety, Homelessness and Wellbeing

Agreed:

      i.          To retain a core physical activity and leisure service within the City Council.

     ii.          The future of leisure services should be focussed on where investment and resources will have most impact on reducing health inequalities and increasing levels of physical activity.

   iii.          Development and adoption of a strategic Vision for future provision of physical activity facilities and services across the city.

 

Facilities

   iv.          Authorise Officers to go to the marketplace and procure an outsourced leisure management model for a term of up to 15 years to 31^st March 2041, embedding in strategic breaks.

    v.          Retain an “Agency Model” within the new contract to realise benefits of changes to reclamation of irrecoverable VAT on leisure services.

   vi.          Reduce the financial impact of the leisure portfolio on the Councils finances to:

a.    Lower the management costs towards a break even position.

b.    Seek to increase income from the leisure management contract.

c.    Seek partnership opportunities for investment in facilities.

d.    Explore opportunities for community asset transfers.

 vii.          Ensure any new Contractor will adopt a Real Living Wage renumeration within the local workforce.

viii.          Adopt Community Wealth Building opportunities within the Contract.

   ix.          Allow Officers to engage and negotiate an extension of the scope of the new outsourced contract to include:

a.    Educational establishments sports and leisure facilities within the City Council boundaries.

b.    Sports and Leisure Facilities within South and East Cambridgeshire District Councils boundaries, including any District Council, Parish Council and Educational Establishment Facilities.

c.    Any third party operators or clubs facilities in either Local Authority boundaries.

    x.          Develop an investment plan reflecting the findings of the Built Facility Strategy. Priority investments for:

a.    Decarbonisation of the portfolio to reach the Council’s Net Zero aspirations by 2030.

b.    Improvements to Jesus Green Lido.

c.    Improvements and expansions of fitness suites and studio provision.

   xi.          Include Health outcomes aligned with Public Health and NHS Commissioning Boards within the specification with clear KPIs and outcomes to be delivered.

 xii.          Allow the procured Contractor to be able to deliver some elements of social prescribing.

xiii.          Work with developers in relation to strategic sites identified in the emerging Local Plan to 2041 for: 

a.    Allocation of offsite funds to new pool locations and existing pool and indoor and outdoor sports improvements.

KPIs

xiv.          Develop a suite of relevant leisure KPIs that reflect and align to corporate priorities which enable the impact of service outcomes to be evaluated and develop a regular reporting process to update and be reviewed by Members.

 

Partnerships

xv.          Review all grant aid support including National Non Domestic Rate Relief (NNDR); focussing on where it will have most impact on reducing inequalities and decreasing inactivity and improving healthy lifestyles.

xvi.          Work with Public Health and NHS Commissioning Boards to determine areas of investment and collaborative partnerships to deliver Health outcomes aligned to both organisations objectives and with clear KPIs to be delivered.

xvii.          Consider options for asset transfer and report back to Scrutiny committee should there be any changes or requests to transfer assets.

xviii.          Develop the relationship with Friends of Jesus Green Lido for capital investment and fund raising opportunities through their charitable status.

Devolution

xix.          To consider and build in flexibility within the contract term to adjust to any impacts on the Leisure Management Contract that may develop across the District as a result of devolution.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

See Officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Community, Sport & Recreation Manager.

 

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

      i.          The future expansion of the city’s population size was factored into the new leisure contract considerations. Contract provision matched expected city size in the future along with the new growth areas and the additional leisure facilities these would provide.

     ii.          Various sustainability features were in place such as decarbonising swimming pools and replacing boilers with air source heat pumps. The intention was to get to net zero by 2030 and details were to be set out in the contract specification for investments needed and collaborative working on the proposed district heating network.

   iii.          Strategic Break clauses were in place if contactors did not meet their obligations.

   iv.          Contractors were responsible for training their staff to keep up to date on current regulations and legislation.

 

Councillor Ashton sought clarification if current outsourced leisure facilities would be brought in-house? The Executive Councillor said in-sourcing was considered as part of the options appraisal but the City Council did not have the skills to do this currently, and there would be a significant additional ongoing costs to the City Council if this were to be brought back in-house.

 

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 Environment Act 2021 required all councils to align their household waste and recycling services with new nationwide requirements known as ‘Simpler Recycling’ by 31 March 2026.

 

Greater Cambridge Shared Waste (GCSWS) already met many of the requirements, but the most pressing task was to introduce a weekly collection for food waste, for domestic households by 1 April 2026.

 

Our ability to progress this task has been hampered by a lack of information on additional grant funding from DEFRA. This was still awaited, but due to the scale of the project, Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee was being asked to approve the proposals and associated budget so that a start can be made on planning for the introduction of food waste weekly collections.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment

      i.          Endorsed the proposed approach for implementing mandatory weekly food waste   collections from 1st April 2026.

     ii.          Noted the potential costs to implement the weekly collection of food waste including the current capital allocation shortfall of approximately £200,000 and potential revenue shortfall (currently unknown.)

   iii.          Noted that costs had been included within the 2025/2026 Budget Setting Report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

See Officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Waste Policy, Change and Innovations Manager. Amended recommendations were set out on the addendum sheet:

 

      i.          Endorsed the proposed approach for implementing mandatory weekly food waste collections from 1st April 2026.

     ii.          Noted the potential costs to implement the weekly collection of food waste including the current capital allocation shortfall of £464,000 and potential revenue shortfall (currently unknown).

   iii.          Noted that costs have been included within the 2025/2026 Budget Setting Report.

   iv.          Delegated the decision to approve the use of The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) funding received to the Head of Finance so that Implementation can commence.

 

      i.          Endorsed the proposed approach for implementing mandatory weekly food waste   collections from 1st April 2026.

     ii.          Noted the potential costs to implement the weekly collection of food waste including the current capital allocation shortfall of approximately £200,000 and potential revenue shortfall (currently unknown.)

   iii.          Noted that costs had been included within the 2025/2026 Budget Setting Report.

 

The Head of Greater Cambridge Shared Waste Service said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Would aim to recruit and train up sufficient staff to cover the Waste Service. Agency staff would be used to cover any gaps in the short term.

     ii.          Public awareness campaigns would be undertaken to communicate what the Waste Service was doing and why regarding food waste, to maximise uptake and correct use of the new waste collection stream by residents.

   iii.          The County Council would be responsible for treatment of the collected food waste.

   iv.          Anaerobic digestion was suitable for biodegradable or non-biodegradable plastic bags in food caddies and all food types.

    v.          For dry recyclable materials, collected waste would go to a bulking facility in Waterbeach Facility, then onto the newly procured ReGEN MRF (Materials Recovery Facility) in Northern Ireland, and / or in UK Mainland in future.

 

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

      i.          Caddies would be provided that could be kept in peoples’ kitchens for any type of food waste. Any plastic bag could be used as liner. Central Government were rolling out a similar scheme nationally. Other local authorities had separate food waste collections to green bins.

     ii.          Food waste could be used to produce energy through anaerobic digestion; it was more valuable to use it that way instead of making compost (compost was unsuitable for some types of food such as dairy), and better than sending food waste to landfill.

   iii.          It was cheaper to roll out the food waste collection service to all households instead of doing it on an ad hoc basis to some properties. All would receive the same communication even if the household was already composting food waste.

   iv.          DEFRA funding for the service had just been confirmed as per details in the amended Officer report.

    v.          People (eg in large households or HMOs) could ask for extra bins/caddies as per green bins, but it was hoped the weekly collection service and discouragement of food waste would mitigate demand for 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.

 

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report provided details of the proposed changes to Cambridge General Market (General Market) Terms and Conditions, the engagement exercise undertaken with existing traders and its findings, and subsequent recommendations for Scrutiny Committee and Executive Councillor review and approval.

 

A decision was needed to bring the General Market Terms and Conditions for Cambridge (currently known as Regulations) in line with current industry standards - as recommended by the National Association of British Market Authorities (NABMA) - and enable the Council to continue to operate clean, safe, attractive, and vibrant markets meeting its corporate objectives and the needs of customers.

 

The General Market Terms and Conditions were relevant to the day-to-day operation of Cambridge Markets and provided clarity on market powers so that there was a reference point for any action the Council may wish to take in respect of protecting and supporting its current and future markets.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Climate Action and Environment

      i.          Noted the approach taken to engage with Market Traders and their representatives on proposed changes to their terms and conditions (Section 7 of the Officer’s report), and the findings from this exercise (Section 5.4 of the Officer’s report).

     ii.          Approved the introduction of these new General Market Terms and Conditions.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

See Officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Strategic Delivery Manager.

 

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

      i.          The Markets & Street Trading Manager liaised with traders to monitor their carbon footprint. Traders who generated high levels of waste were asked to take it away with them. Traders had waste management certificates that could be monitored.

     ii.          The project was to ensure the long-time life of the market, make it a better civic space and create better conditions for traders. It was not a way to cancel the market and get rid of traders.

   iii.          Traders were consulted on arrangements but there was a low response rate to liaison.

   iv.          Traders may be asked to move on a specific day to make the best use of facilities such as electricity. Traders would not be asked to relocate far, just somewhere else on the market.

    v.          Extenuating circumstances would be considered in (ref #7.3 on P50) “Traders that fail to attend the market for a period of 4 consecutive weeks without the written consent of the Market Management Team will be subject to disciplinary procedures”.

 

In reference to #7.3 and #7.8 the Strategic Delivery Manager said communication would start in writing then move onto other types if no response was received.

 

   vi.          The disciplinary procedure was amended and the objector who raised concerns was informed.

 vii.          The market square would always be the market square in the civic quarter plan. Plans were still in development.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report was presented following a request for a special meeting of Environment and Community Scrutiny in accordance with Section 43 of the Council’s standing orders. The information in the report reflects and responds to the request for this special meeting. It focuses entirely on the fallow year of the Cambridge Folk Festival, the basis and timings of the decision and outline plans for 2025.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Noted the information provided regarding the Folk Festival 2024, decision making and future planning.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Director of Communities. Additional comments were made by the Chief Executive, Culture & Community Manager and Executive Councillor for Communities.

 

Opposition Councillors asked questions covering the following general topics:

      i.          A special meeting was requested to discuss the Folk Festival January 2025, so wanted clarification why the meeting was not heard before 20 March 2025?

     ii.          Were there any cost savings from the Executive Councillor’s decision? Total of costs not to run Folk Festival appeared similar to those to run it, so why was the Folk Festival cancelled?

   iii.          When was the decision taken to cancel the Folk Festival?

 

The Chair said the City Council’s constitution, Part 4A Council Procedure Rules para 43, provides that two members of the committee have the right to call a special meeting on a single item of business. Once the request was received, the Chair consulted members of the committee to find a suitable date that all members could attend ie 20 March 2025. Members of the committee should note that the procedure rules do not entitle the members who requested  the special meeting to determine when the meeting should take place.

 

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

      i.          The decision to delay the Folk Festival was made 7 January 2025 but this decision was not announced until 17 January due to commercial sensitivities. Having a fallow year had commercial implications so details had to be confirmed before a public announcement could be made.

 

The Executive Councillor for Communities added that once a decision was made, Officers had five working days to respond. There were no delays in communication to manipulate the situation. Consistent wording was used in communications ie ‘delay’ not ‘cancel’ to avoid confusion.

 

     ii.          Referred to cost details in the report. The expected surplus from the 2024 Folk Festival did not materialise, this led to a readjustment in the budget.

 

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

      i.          Was unable to reallocate funding when it appeared the Folk Festival was experiencing financial difficulties. The Executive Councillor had regular updates from Officers. She received a report on 30 December 2024 that the Folk Festival was in trouble and discussed it with the Labour Group in January 2025.

     ii.          Folk Festivals across the world were in trouble, not just the city. Dorset Folk Festival went into liquidation 20 March 2025 and many other Folk Festivals were in trouble as costs increased and ticket sales declined. It was also harder to get acts to perform. Many Folk Festivals were permanently cancelled in the UK to date. The country was still feeling the impact of Covid-19 so smaller independent Folk Festivals found it harder to get headliner acts.

 

The Committee queried if Opposition Councillors had the opportunity to approach Officers for information before committee. It was clarified that Councillors could approach the Director then raise questions in committee or at Full Council. The Chair said a list of questions had been submitted when a special meeting was requested. Councillor Payne added Opposition Councillors had the opportunity to liaise with Officers prior to Committee, but this was the first opportunity to scrutinise the Executive Councillor in a public forum.

 

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

      i.          Cost trends had contributed to Folk Festival decline. There were fewer ticket sales nationally for Folk Festivals. This led to the need to review the sustainability of the Cambridge Folk Festival.

     ii.          There was some delay in communications to ensure details were correct and stakeholders were confident that a delay to the Folk Festival 2025 would mean the Folk Festival could go ahead in 2026. Commercial sensitivity meant that certain stakeholders were contacted before a public announcement was made in January 2025.

 

Councillor Payne specifically queried when it was known the Folk Festival had financial difficulties. It should have been apparent after the 2024 Folk Festival, so why was action not taken sooner ie August 2024 rather than January 2025? The Executive Councillor said four options were listed in the report she was given by Officers in December 2024, two of which were to cancel or postpone until 2026.

 

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

      i.          There were sufficient staff in place to manage Folk Festival arrangements. Business transformation strengthened arrangements and resilience. The City Council staff restructure did not affect the Folk Festival.

     ii.          City Council Officers has successfully delivered the Folk Festival for fifty-nine years. They had the skills to continue doing so.

   iii.          The Folk Festival was normally cost neutral in the Council budget so the Executive Councillor did not need to be involved. She had been involved this year due to reasons set out in the Officer’s report i.e. expected financial loss.

 

Councillor Payne asked for specific details on when bookings were planned for Folk Festival acts. Were these being taken in the autumn as normal (for example) or not, so the Folk Festival was cancelled by a fait accompli?

 

The Director of Communities said the following in response:

      i.          A decision to make 2025 a fallow year was taken 7 January. The Folk Festival could have gone ahead at this point if the decision had not been taken. Contracts were drawn up in January each year. Agents were still offering contracts 7-17 January when the postponement decision was publicly announced, so the Folk Festival was not cancelled by fait accompli.

     ii.          Two hundred early bird tickets were offered refunds and tickets to alternative 2025 events, forty-five contacts accepted this to date.

   iii.          Fallow years were common for Folk Festivals. For example, Glastonbury had fallow years on alternate years.

   iv.          A review was required to develop a sustainability plan for 2026.

 

The Executive Councillor for Communities had received generous and supportive feedback from the Folk Festival community when they leaned of plans for 2025-26.

 

The Chair asked Officers to provide regular updates for Councillors to pass onto residents. She suggested Councillors could contact Officers for further details.

 

The Committee resolved nem con to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report set out a proposal regarding Cambridge Leisure Development.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

Approved the Officer’s recommendations.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Scrutiny Committee resolved to exclude members of the public from the meeting on the grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraphs 3 and 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

The Chair ruled that under 100B(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 the late item be considered despite not being made publicly available for this committee five clear days prior to the meeting.

 

The following item on the agenda related to a key decision that was not included on the Forward Plan for the whole 28-day requirement before the meeting. This was because it wasn’t clear whether contracts and affordable housing agreements for Fanshawe, ATS/Murketts and Newbury Farm would be signed and sealed in time for the March 31st S&R Committee. As it became clear that there was a possibility of sealing all contracts in time, a paper was submitted.

 

With the permission of the Chair of Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee the urgency procedure was invoked to suspend the 28-day requirement so that the item can be considered at Committee, so it was open to scrutiny and debate rather than a decision being made through the out of cycle process.

 

Matter for Decision

The council has acted in the past as the development debt provider to fund the development of regeneration and housing schemes delivered by Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP). To date this partnership has already delivered over 1,000 new homes since 2018, across 23 sites, including 732 council homes, with 656 being net new council homes.

 

As stated in the CIP Members Agreement, the development costs for mixed tenure schemes are funded by 60% of debt, and 40% equity funded internally by Hill Partnerships and the council as investment partners.

 

Development financing has been in place for Mill Road and Cromwell Road. Since then, there had been considerable change in public sector lending rules since prior funding arrangements were agreed between the council and CIP. Most notably the requirements of the subsidy control principles set out in the Subsidy Control Act / (Gross Cash Amount and Gross Cash Equivalent) Regulations 2022.

 

The Council proposed to continue to fund the development of regeneration and housing schemes delivered by Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) whilst acknowledging the changes required to be compliant. Future loan facilities will be subject to a covenant, to the effect that any draw down is to be utilised solely for the purposes of Housing delivery, including regeneration activities, new build development and delivery of affordable housing.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources  

Recommended to Full Council to:

      i.          Approve a capital budget for 3 loan facilities amounting to £18,500,000, to be provided to Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) and to be utilised solely for the purposes of Housing delivery, including regeneration activities and new build development at Newbury Farm, ATS/Murketts Histon Rd, and Fanshawe Road.

     ii.          Delegate authority to the Chief Finance Officer to make arrangements for capital financing of the loans in accordance with relevant statutory guidance and the council’s Treasury Management Strategy and Capital Strategy.

   iii.          Approve the setting of interest rates applicable to the 3 loan facilities at 3.5% margin above 5-year Gilt Rates.

   iv.          Delegate authority to the Chief Finance Officer to agree the detailed terms of the loans, including (but not limited to) availability period, drawdown dates and arrangements, pricing dates, and restrictive covenants.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

See Officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Assistant Director of Development.

 

The Assistant Director of Development said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Three loans amounting to £18,500,000 were secured on land for each development. The development program showed loans would be paid after two years for each development. The return on investment should include the land value and purchase cost.

     ii.          The CIP bought land which the loans were secured against, and would pay this back quickly, so the risk (ie possible decline in land value) transferred from the City Council to CIP.

   iii.          Value for money options had been reviewed to ascertain if the City Council was paying the right amount for land/housing/development.

 

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

      i.          The loans were a fifty-fifty joint venture with CIP. Regular scrutiny committees and project delivery meetings occurred so accounts were monitored.

     ii.          CIP had never defaulted on loans so they were considered an acceptable investment.

   iii.          Officers had sought advice on how to interpret MRP guidance. They did not expect to charge MRP on the loans. If money was lost through land value decline, the City Council would impose an additional charge to make up the difference.

 

Councillor Bick sought clarification on the number of affordable homes to be delivered and if a restrictive covenant was required to limit how homes could be marketed so city residents could be prioritised instead of overseas investors.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources said Hills brought agility to the housing delivery process. The private sector wanted to work with the public sector although they could get comparable borrowing rates elsewhere. The partnership was to deliver housing in line with market conditions ie quality and affordable.

 

The Assistant Director of Development said a policy was in place not to market homes offshore. He referred to the sales and marketing subcommittee policy that the City Council and CIP would not undertake offshore marketing of homes.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

The report updated Members of Strategy and Resources Committee on the recent developments with Central Governments project for the growth of Cambridge.

 

Decision of Leader

Noted the update on the progress of the Cambridge Delivery Company implementation.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

See Officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Joint Director of Planning.

 

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

      i.          Ministers were visiting other parts of the city, not just Cambridge City Council. This needed public scrutiny. Ministers appeared able to change housing delivery figure targets for the City Council to deliver. Ministers should be invited to visit the City Council to hear the views of local Councillors on the practicalities of delivery.

     ii.          Queried if more power would be given to Mayors in future which would take planning decisions away from the City Council?

   iii.          There appeared to be two rival processes described in the Officer’s report:

a.    The Local Plan developed through the joint planning service.

b.    Central Government ambitions for Cambridge City.

c.    Appropriate infrastructure was required to deliver proposed housing.

 

The Leader said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The Cambridge Growth Company had established an Advisory Council. Quarterly updates could be provided to Cambridge City Council Committee(s). These were process discussions that were outside public scrutiny as occurred with some City Council processes.

     ii.          Ministers were visiting other parts of the city, not just Cambridge City Council, about issues that could affect the Council eg water. The city was the focus of ministerial attention.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources said water scarcity was a known issue in the east of England so this would affect Local Plan housing figures that could be delivered. If Central Government wanted more housing than was listed in the Local Plan they would need to put in substantial resources to deliver extra housing. The speculative figures mentioned in the media could not be delivered without supporting infrastructure.

 

   iii.          Would ask Peter Freeman to attend future Cambridge City Council committee meetings.

 

The Joint Director of Planning said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Referred to P87 of the agenda pack. Officers were seeking clarification regarding the relationship between the Local Plan (as a statutory development plan) and Central Government ambitions from Central Government and the Cambridge Growth Company.

     ii.          The Local Plan was the foundation for future growth and had prominence through legislation.

   iii.          The Joint Local Plan was in place until 2045. The Cambridge Delivery Company should accelerate the delivery of planned growth strategies.

   iv.          The planning phase to deliver appropriate infrastructure for housing should conclude by spring 2026. Separately the Council would consult on various strategies such as transport. Details would be confirmed in future. Separately, the Combined Authority was also undertaking some consultation to conclude by 2026.

    v.          Ministers had mentioned housing targets in the media eg 150,000 but there was no set amount in plans. The City Council followed a set process for developing the Local Plan as set out in law. The Cambridge Development Company had a different type of plan and processes. It was not a ‘plan’ in the same way as the City Council Local Plan.

   vi.          The Cambridge Delivery Company had no statutory role so could not supersede the Local Plan. They had to follow the Local Plan unless there were exceptions such as Ministerial guidance.

 vii.          The relationship between the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough’s Spatial Development Strategy and City Council’s Local Plan was set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (and subsequent amendments). The Local Plan set out allocated sites for housing.

viii.          The whole country had infrastructure stress. This was an opportunity to improve infrastructure in the Greater Cambridge area and make the case for need to the Treasury as part of delivering housing. This would show what could be delivered over and above the Local Plan if appropriate resources were in place.

   ix.          Robust policies were in place to manage water supply, the challenge was to deliver.

 

The Committee resolved nem con to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

This was a regular report to the Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee providing an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) Board.

 

Decision of Leader

Noted the update provided on the issues considered at the meeting of the Combined Authority Board held on 19 March 2025 and the forward plan for future items.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

See Officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Director of Place & Economy.

 

The Director of Place & Economy said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Two sections of the orbital bus route would go live in phase 1 (summer 2025) and the remainder in phase 2. Acknowledged the orbital route would not be a whole 360 degrees around the city until complete. When complete, commuters would not have to pass through the city centre to reach their destination. Acknowledged commuting through the city centre could cause travel delays.

 

The Leader undertook to liaise with the Combined Authority Mayor and clarify orbital bus route details with Councillor Bick.

 

     ii.          Peterborough station improvements included:

a.    Commitment to step free access.

b.    More and faster trains between Cambridge and Peterborough.

   iii.          Noted there was some out-of-date information about Peterborough station improvements in the public domain so would ascertain if updated details could be provided to residents.

 

The Committee resolved nem con to endorse the recommendation

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

This proposal sets out the new approach the Council will use to manage its performance. It will be a part of the policy framework for the Council, it was therefore being presented to the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources for approval.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

      i.          Approved the attached Performance Management Framework Principles and Approach document in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report.

     ii.          Noted the next steps for implementation.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

See Officer’s report.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Chief Operating Officer.

 

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

      i.          The Performance Management Framework looked at inputs, outputs and outcomes such as resident satisfaction. Some measures were statutory. The baseline was a mix of data to date, or ‘form now’ if no prior data sets were available.

 

Councillor Robertson drew comparison to key performance indicators reported to Housing Scrutiny Committee.

 

     ii.          Key performance data has been tested using other data sources to ensure they would work.

   iii.          The risk management framework and performance dashboard was currently being tested and Officers were working with Corporate Managers to ensure they had the details to produce data reports.

   iv.          Data collection points would determine if data could be reported quarterly or annually to Scrutiny Committee or Cabinet.

    v.          The initial proposal was to present measures to Councillors, report for a period, ascertain if Councillors were happy with the process then review if Officers would publish data to the public as often as it was reported to Councillors.

 

The Executive Councillor said the purpose of the Corporate Hub should be to enable the Council to be an effective and efficient, high performing organisation. This was important to show it had impacts meaningful to residents, the environment and stakeholders.

 

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.