A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register

Decisions

Earlier - Later

Decisions published

12/04/2018 - Draft Pay Policy Statement 2018/19 ref: 4663    Recommendations Approved

To consider a draft Pay Policy Statement 2018/19 and a proposal for a Cambridge Weighting to bring pay rates to the equivalent of a minimum of £10 per hour.

Decision Maker: Civic Affairs

Decision published: 25/04/2018

Effective from: 12/04/2018

Decision:

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL

Officer Record of Decision

 

What decision(s) has been taken:

To implement the National Joint Council Pay Award for 2018-20

Who made the decision:

Head of Human Resources

Date decision made: 

12 April 2018

Matter for Decision /Wards affected

Decision delegated from Civic Affairs Committee

Reason(s) for the decision including any background papers considered

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

   

 

To implement the nationally agreed pay award for staff on Bands 1-11 following receipt of notification by circular from the National Joint Council for Local Government Services dated 10 April 2018.

 

 

 

Pay awards for staff on Bands 1-11 are agreed by national level collective bargaining between the national employers and trade unions. Once agreed at a national level the City Council implements the pay award in accordance with the terms of staff contracts of employment.

 

 

Conflicts of interest and dispensations granted by the Chief Executive:

None.

 

Other Comments:

 

This decision is taken in accordance with the delegated authority from Civic Affairs Committee to the Head of Human Resources, as follows:

 

To implement any award of a joint negotiating body so far as it concerns rates of salary, wages, car allowances or other allowances payable to officers and other employees of the Council except where the terms thereof involve the exercise of a discretion by the Council provided that when any action is taken in pursuance of this paragraph members are advised by the Head of Human Resources and a record of that advice be made available to the public.

 

Reference:

 

Contact for further information:

Deborah Simpson, Head of Human Resources.

 

Lead officer: Deborah Simpson


19/03/2018 - Minutes ref: 4654    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Licensing Committee

Made at meeting: 19/03/2018 - Licensing Committee

Decision published: 16/04/2018

Effective from: 19/03/2018

Decision:

The minutes of the meeting held on 29 January 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.


19/03/2018 - Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Ultra-Low and Zero Emission Vehicle Policy ref: 4656    Recommendations Approved

To consider the proposed implementation of incentives to support the uptake of electric and hybrid vehicles.

Decision Maker: Licensing Committee

Made at meeting: 19/03/2018 - Licensing Committee

Decision published: 16/04/2018

Effective from: 19/03/2018

Decision:

The Committee received a report from the Environmental Health Manager.

 

The report set out the proposed incentives to support the update of ultra-low and zero emission vehicles within the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire vehicle fleet.

 

There is a need to reduce polluting emissions to improve poor air quality in City Locations dominated by emissions from buses, taxis and service vehicles.  This must be achieved whilst maintaining sufficient levels of access and capacity for travel in the City, for the vehicles using those areas.

 

The UK government has a long term vision for all new cars and vans to be zero emission by 2040 and for nearly every car and van to be zero emission by 2050.  These recommendations fit with national policy.

 

At Full Council on 22 February 2018, it was agreed that financial support would be committed in order to help effect the change to ultra-low and zero emission licensed vehicles over the next 5 years.

 

The Officer’s report further detailed the proposed implementation scheme in order to encourage an incentivised cost effective shift to ultra-low and zero emission licensed vehicles.

 

The Environmental Health Manager corrected a typographical error on P18 of her report. #8 “Further to option 7 (above), currently the market does not provide many Ultra-low or Zero Emission Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles.”

 

The Committee received representations.

 

1.    Mr Vines raised the following points:

       i.          Expressed concern about setting a date when all new licensed saloon vehicles should be zero or ultra-low emission.

     ii.          Suggested the policy guessed when technology would be in place for vehicles to meet criteria.

   iii.          The taxi fleet did not have any plug-in electric vehicles, but did have hybrid ones that used electric power to travel around the city.

   iv.          Requested the implementation date be deferred as there were no suitable alternative vehicles at present.

    v.          Lots of drivers travelled to the city from other areas. Electric vehicles did not have the range to facilitate this. Hybrid vehicles did.

   vi.          Queried if the proposed exclusion zone would cover all vehicle types or just taxis.

 vii.          Reducing the amount of wheelchair accessible vehicles within the Hackney Carriage Fleet from 65% to 50% seemed a small reduction ie 15%.

 

The Environmental Quality and Growth Team Manager responded:

                 i.          Plug-in hybrid vehicles were in development by 20+ companies so future availability would not be an issue.

               ii.          Purely electric vehicles that could travel 200 miles on a single charge would also be available soon. They would be in place for the 2020 policy timescale.

             iii.          City Council Officers were discussing the vehicle restriction with county partners. The city could only control licensed taxi and private hire vehicles, but hoped to influence others such as buses. The restriction would apply to all vehicle types.

 

Mr Vines raised the following supplementary points:

                 i.          Taxi drivers naturally gravitated towards the most efficient vehicles. These were currently hybrids.

               ii.          The taxi age limit was 9 years.

             iii.          The policy could impact on when vehicles needed to be replaced. Suggested this should be at the end of a vehicles natural life (9 years) rather than having a cut off as a specific year.

 

The Environmental Quality and Growth Team Manager said the specific cut-off date allowed drivers to plan and forecast their decision making based on the council’s 10 year plan.

 

2.    Mr Mohammed raised the following points:

       i.          Referred to recommendation 2.2.7 ”To reduce the total number of Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles within the Hackney Carriage Fleet from 65% to 50% (213 to 163 ) and those 50 plates to be replaced by Zero emission vehicles. Consideration should be sought to review this in 3 years.”

     ii.          Most saloon car taxis worked out of the railway station.

   iii.          They had to turn away business when people (usually elderly and less mobile) wanted a saloon car but only a wheelchair accessible vehicle was available.

   iv.          Wheelchair users made a majority of journeys by private hire vehicles rather than taxis.

 

Councillor Bird responded that a range of vehicles to suit all people’s needs should be available. 50% of the fleet being wheelchair accessible was acceptable if this covered the level of demand. Disabled people had to wait disproportionally longer for vehicles than other people as there were fewer of these vehicles.

 

The Environmental Health Manager said she was seeking comments from the taxi trade as to whether 50% of the fleet being wheelchair accessible was acceptable, too many or too few.

 

3.    Mr Bradley raised the following points:

       i.          Replacing taxis with hybrid saloon cars would reduce emissions.

     ii.          Expressed concern about replacing hybrid vehicles with purely electric ones by the proposed cut-off date as current technology did not meet the need.

   iii.          Expressed concern about banning petrol and diesel cars until appropriate alternative (technology) vehicles were in place.

 

As a supplementary point, Mr Bradley hoped that saloon cars would be more affordable in future.

 

The Environmental Health Manager said:

       i.          The recommendations were for discussion. They were not a policy already in place.

     ii.          The policy proposed a 10 year plan. This could be reviewed if technology was not in place in future. However it was expected to be.

 

The Environmental Health Manager said she appreciated there were very limited options for wheelchair accessible electric cars at present, so the aim was to start a modal shift by encouraging low emission saloon cars then moving towards other types of vehicles.

 

The Environmental Quality and Growth Team Manager responded:

                 i.          There were 2 electric makes of vehicle available at present that were wheelchair accessible. These were mandated for taxis in London.

               ii.          More types of these vehicle were expected in future at more affordable prices. These should be available for the City Council policy proposed deadline for replacing taxis with zero or ultra-low emission vehicles.

 

4.    Councillor Baigent (Romsey Ward Councillor) raised the following points:

       i.          Queried percentage taxis contributed towards city pollution levels.

     ii.          Larger vehicles were generally wheelchair accessible. It was proposed to replace these with saloon cars. Not all disabled people used wheelchairs.

   iii.          People had difficulty getting into vehicles with high steps. Saloon cars may address this issue.

   iv.          2028 was the target date to reduce emissions and pollution by. A review would occur in 2026.

    v.          Queried who would be covered by the vehicle restriction eg Uber.

 

The Environmental Quality and Growth Team Manager responded:

                 i.          15% was the ball park average pollution level from private hire vehicles and hackney carriages. This came predominantly from diesel vehicles.

               ii.          If the proposed vehicle restriction was accepted then it would cover all vehicles entering the city, not just city licensed (taxi/private hire) vehicles.

             iii.          The aim was to improve air quality. Vehicles that met the city’s criteria would not be fined for entering the restricted area. Automatic number plate recognition technology would be used to police the restricted zone.

 

Councillor Baigent raised the following supplementary points:

                 i.          Taxis were replaced every 9 years.

               ii.          Current ones were unlikely to be hybrids. Could the council extend the policy time limit to allow drivers to replace vehicles nearer the 9 year vehicle age limit based on individual’s circumstances.

 

The Environmental Quality and Growth Team Manager acknowledged the 9 year age limit point. Drivers had 10 years to factor this into their buying decision for replacement vehicles. He recommended imposing a deadline for action.

 

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

       i.          Supported the report recommendations.

     ii.          Public health was being affected by pollution in the city.

   iii.          The market and range of vehicles available was changing/improving.

   iv.          The deadline for policy implementation could be reviewed to ascertain it was fit for purpose eg appropriate technology being available.

    v.          Other European cities had already adopted more radical measures.

   vi.          Oxford was already preparing to restrict City Centre Access only to ultra-low and zero emission Licensed Vehicles by 2022.

 vii.          Vehicles that did not meet the Cambridge City low emission criteria should be banned. This included cars buses and lorries.

viii.          The city council was looking at suitable low emission or electric vehicles to replace waste vehicles in future.

   ix.          The City Council’s high standards for vehicles should be promoted as a benchmark for others and to promote branding to encourage use  instead of other (lower standard) providers.

    x.          It was better for people to travel in the city by taxi rather than private car.

   xi.          Expressed concern about the trade-off between disability and pollution. Disabled friendly vehicles were being replaced with lower emission vehicles. Queried if diesel powered wheelchair accessible vehicles would be exempt from the restriction zone if low emission vehicles were not available. Otherwise people would face travel restrictions.

 xii.          Accessible vehicles were not always suitable for non-wheelchair users. Alternatives were preferred.

xiii.          Taxis were running their engines whilst stationary ie waiting for trade. This was against the law. Taxi trade representatives present at the meeting were asked to feedback councillors’ concerns to other drivers.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Environmental Quality and Growth Team Manager said the following:

       i.          The report set out a range of policies officers would like adopted. Councillors would discuss the merits of these prior to approval/refusal. One proposal was that vehicles that did not meet the same criteria as city licensed vehicles would be restricted. The restriction zone would be considered by Greater Cambridge Partnership, but if Members accepted the proposal today, it would give officers a mandate to negotiate with the Greater Cambridge Partnership.

     ii.          2020 was suggested as the implementation date rather than 2018 as a courtesy to give the taxi trade forewarning of proposals and allow them to business plan the implementation in line with other measures such as standard livery.

   iii.          The breakdown of pollution constituents was as follows:

a.    Inner city: 80% derived from vehicles. Of the 80%; 50% came from buses, 15-20% from delivery vehicles, 15-20% from taxis, the remainder came from other sources.

b.    Ring roads: Buses and taxis were a lower proportion of pollutants.

   iv.          The council was close to meeting its objective about air pollution in the city. A steady improvement had been made in air quality. As the city grew there would be more demand for transport. Greater Cambridge Partnership were looking at transport and congestion issues. For example, bus transport numbers were expected to rise by 60%, and so was the level of pollution if diesel vehicles were used, hence the need for alternative vehicle types.

    v.          The city council could only control/affect vehicles it licensed. Greater Cambridge Partnership were responsible for buses.

   vi.          The running costs for electric vehicles were 3p a mile (whilst charging at home over night), whereas diesel vehicles were 17p a mile. The city council proposed to put in rapid chargers around the city which could give a 80% battery charge in 20 minutes. This would work out at 6p a mile. By charging at home and using one rapid charge the cost of electric vehicles would be less than diesel. The cost of the rapid charge would be factored into service costs to always be below diesel.

 vii.          Rapid chargers were expected to be in place in the city soon. An operator was in place. Work would start early April and finish in September.

viii.          A new electric saloon vehicle was expected to cost circa £55,000. There were (circa £10,000) discounts available to incentivise the purchase for disabled passengers. Circa £2,500 discounts were available for hybrid cars.

   ix.          It was rare for trade drivers to buy new vehicles. Hopefully second hand vehicles would be cheaper as more low emission and electric vehicles became available. The high purchase price could be offset by lower running costs compared to petrol/diesel vehicles.

 

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

         i.          Referred to the 2016 Licensing Committee report on consultation principles for vehicle types and how many should be disability friendly.

       ii.          There had been an on-going trade-off between low emission and accessible vehicles. The demand survey looked at the need for accessible taxis and suggested the number could be reduced from 65% to 50%.

     iii.          The recommendations only covered zero emission and ultra-low vehicles, not hybrids as there many types of these that may/not meet criteria set out in the report.

     iv.          South Cambridgeshire District Council did not support the city Council low emission vehicle report recommendations as their  had different vehicle standards due to the number of long distance journeys for which electric vehicles were currently unsuitable.

      v.          Reiterated the report recommendations were options for discussion and approval.

     vi.          Said there was no implementation timeline in the recommendations so councillors were referred to table (2.3) of the Officer’s report.

 

The Licensing Committee stated they were happy to follow the timeframe for implementation of incentives.

 

The Committee:

Unanimously resolved by those present (10 votes to 0):

       i.          The following incentives should form part of the environmental considerations in the Hackney Carriage & Private Hire Licensing Policy in order to encourage and reward the uptake of ultra-low and zero emission vehicles within the licensed vehicle fleet as set out in the table in paragraph 3.2.2 (P16-18) of the Officer’s report:

·       A licence fee exemption for zero emission vehicles.

·       A licence fee discount for ultra-low emission vehicles.

·       An extended age limit for zero emission vehicles.

·       An extended age limit for ultra-low vehicles.

·       A set date for all New Licensed Saloon vehicles to be ultra-low or zero emission.

·       A set date for all Licensed Saloon Vehicles to be ultra-low or zero emission.

·       To reduce the total number of Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles within the Hackney Carriage Fleet  from  65% to 50% (213  to 163  ) and those 50 plates to be replaced by zero emission vehicles. Consideration should be sought to review this in 3 years.

·       A set date for all Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles to be ultra-low or zero emission as and when the market allows.

·       To restrict City Centre Access to ultra-low and zero emission Licensed Vehicles only.

     ii.          Agreed the timeframe for implementation of incentives as set out in the table in paragraph 3.2.2 (P16-18) of the Officer’s report.


19/03/2018 - Review of Cumulative Impact Policy Consultation ref: 4655    Recommendations Approved

To consider the results of the consultation and determine whether to amend the Cumulative Impact Area of Mill Road, in order to remove the Romsey area (past the railway line).

Decision Maker: Licensing Committee

Made at meeting: 19/03/2018 - Licensing Committee

Decision published: 16/04/2018

Effective from: 19/03/2018

Decision:

The Committee received a report from the Team Manager (Commercial & Licensing).

 

The report stated the Statement of Licensing Policy was recently reviewed, approved by Licensing Committee on 17 October 2017, and subsequently full Council on 19 October 2017.

 

The Special Policy on Cumulative Effect (the Cumulative Impact Policy) was contained within the Licensing Policy. During the consultation period Cambridge Constabulary responded to say that based on the figures provided in Appendix 3 of the Statement of Licensing Policy it was questionable whether the Romsey area of Mill Road should remain as part of the Cumulative Impact Area.

 

Licensing Committee therefore requested officers to undertake a further twelve week formal consultation on whether to remove the Romsey area of Mill Road from the Cumulative Impact Area, or not.

 

The formal consultation took place between 13 November 2017 and 4 February 2018. Twenty nine responses were received all supporting keeping the existing Cumulative Impact Area (CIA).

 

The Committee received a representation from Councillor Baigent as a Ward Councillor.

 

The representation covered the following issues:

       i.          There had been a considerable reduction in crime as a result of the CIA so he saw no reason to remove it.

     ii.          He supported comments from the police.

   iii.          There were many places to buy alcohol in Romsey so the CIA was needed to reduce alcohol related crime.

   iv.          More student flats were expected in Mill Road in future. Students drank no more than other people, but the number of residents in the area would increase.

 

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

       i.          Things were improving due to the CIA, but problems had not been solved, so the CIA should be maintained.

     ii.          Romsey was an up and coming area so more dwellings were expected in future. The CIA was needed to mitigate this.

   iii.          Mill Road had a good sense of community. The CIA helped this and helped the police to address street drinking. Residents supported the CIA.

 

Councillor Gehring sought clarification why the police suggested leaving the upper end of Mill Road out of the CIA. Sergeant Stevenson said the police assessment was based on statements of fact. His own view was “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. IE keep the CIA as it.

 

The Committee:

Members considered the results of the public consultation exercise as summarised in Appendix E of the Officer’s report and unanimously resolved the Cumulative Impact Policy should remain as it is.


08/03/2018 - Area Committee Grants 2018-19 ref: 4652    Recommendations Approved

Grant awards for voluntary and community organisations.

Decision Maker: West Central Area Committee

Made at meeting: 08/03/2018 - West Central Area Committee

Decision published: 16/04/2018

Effective from: 08/03/2018

Decision:

The Committee received a report from the Senior Grants Officer regarding Community Development and Leisure Grants.

 

Members considered applications for grants as set out in the Officer’s report, and table below. The Senior Grants Officer responded to Member’s questions about individual projects and what funding aimed to achieve.

 

Ref

Organisation

Purpose

Award £ 

WC1

Christ’s Pieces Residents’ Association

1 winter evening talk

290

WC2

Friends of Histon Road Cemetery

Information and activities

800

WC3

Friends of Midsummer Common

Community activities and maintenance of community orchard

650

 

Budget available

£8,383

Total awards

£1,740

Budget remaining

£6,643     

 

In response to Members’ questions the Senior Grants Officer said the following:

       i.          There was a rolling program of funding that bids could be made for.

     ii.          Formal or informal groups could bid for funding -  the "formal" applicant group would be the accountable group.

 

Members considered the grant applications received, officer comments and proposed awards, detailed in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report, in line with the Area Committee Community Grants criteria.

 

Following discussion, Members unanimously resolved to agree the proposed awards detailed in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report and summarised in the table above.

Lead officer: Jackie Hanson


08/03/2018 - West/Central Area Committee Dates 2018/19 ref: 4653    Recommendations Approved

The Committee is asked to agree the WCAC dates for 2018/19.

Decision Maker: West Central Area Committee

Made at meeting: 08/03/2018 - West Central Area Committee

Decision published: 16/04/2018

Effective from: 08/03/2018

Decision:

The following dates were agreed:

·       Thursday 5 July 2018

·       Thursday 20 September 2018

·       Thursday 6 December 2018 – provisionally

·       Thursday 14 March 2019

 

WCAC agreed dates for 2018/19 subject to review of 6 December 2018 as not all councillors would be able to attend.

 

6 December 2018 would remain the meeting date if an alternative could not be found.

 

Councillors would be asked for alternative dates between 19 November to 21 December. The start time would remain 7pm.

 

Action Point: Committee Manager to clarify if WCAC wish to meet on an alternative date to 6 December 2018.

Lead officer: James Goddard


08/03/2018 - Environmental Report - WCAC ref: 4651    Recommendations Approved

Actions taken by the environmental departments, reporting on private/public realm data and priority setting.

Decision Maker: West Central Area Committee

Made at meeting: 08/03/2018 - West Central Area Committee

Decision published: 16/04/2018

Effective from: 08/03/2018

Decision:

The Committee received a report from the Enforcement Officer.

 

Councillor Holland commented via email (ref needle finds P32, lines 12-25) the following streets were not in Castle Ward: Chesterton Rd, Mitcham's Corner and Thompsons Lane. WCAC commented there was a difference between city council and county council ward boundaries that may account for the discrepancy.

 

The report outlined an overview of City Council Refuse and Environment and Streets and Open Spaces service activity relating to the geographical area served by the West Area Committee.  The report identified the reactive and proactive service actions undertaken in the previous quarter, including the requested priority targets, and reported back on the recommended issues and associated actions. It also included key officer contacts for the reporting of waste and refuse and public realm issues.

 

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

 

Continuing priorities

 

Number

Priority details

1

Enforcement and City Ranger patrols in the City Centre to address issues of illegally deposited trade waste and littering.

This priority has been included as a continuation to balance the high standard of trade waste management and litter patrols already existing in the West/Central area and to continue to build upon this work further.

2

Dog warden patrols to target irresponsible dog owners on Midsummer Common patrols are planned to focus on this area at key times and to gather intelligence / speak to dog owners about the issues in the area, dog fouling continues to be an issue in this area and officers recommend further works are done on the open space. .

 

New priorities

 

Number

Priority details

3

Enforcement patrols to address abandoned vehicles in the Castle Ward.

 

The Committee discussed the following issues:

       i.          Sharps bin locations would be reviewed in future.

     ii.          Suggested following up with the local health partnership a proposal to make needles retractable for easier disposal and to reduce risk of injuries to people finding/collecting dumped needles. Single use needles were desirable.

   iii.          Referred to Councillor Holland’s point about location of needle finds. If statistics were wrong and needle finds were allocated to the wrong ward, it may lead to the misallocation of resources to an area.

   iv.          Graffiti, broken windows, fly tipping (including hazardous items such as canisters) and litter were citywide issues.

    v.          Blood left in public toilets by drug users.

   vi.          Abandoned bikes and cars, particularly around the CB1 railway station and Lammas Land

 

In response to Members’ questions the Enforcement Officer said the following:

       i.          Enforcement Officers looked for and investigated issues such as fly tipping. Evidence was sought and fines imposed where possible. Forty two Section 47 notices had been issued regarding inappropriate disposal of trade waste.

     ii.          Blood in public toilets should be reported to council officers for clean-up.

   iii.          Churchill was the contractor who looked after public toilets on behalf of the City Council, except for Drummer Street, which was managed by a private contractor.

 

Action Point: Enforcement Officer to confirm who is responsible for cleaning of Drummer Street public toilets. Also if there are signs saying this is the responsibility of the City Council (WCAC advised premises are maintained by private contractor).

 

   iv.          A review of the Streets and Open Spaces Service was in place currently. This affected the Ranger Service who were one Ranger short at present, but the vacancy would be held in status quo (no action to fill or remove post) until the service review finished at the end of March 2018.

    v.          Offensive graffiti was removed within two hours of being reported. Other types were cleaned when possible. This was standard operating procedure already. The council kept a database of tags (ie signatures) to pass onto the police to be used in evidence.

   vi.          Mechanisms were already in place for targeted patrols to look for (used) needles, and the Rapid Response Team to clean them up. Making this a WCAC priority would not lead to faster action (as it was already) but could take resources away from other work.

 vii.          Tags were put on suspected abandoned bikes to say they should be removed within seven days or they would be seized.

viii.          A number of vehicles were reported as abandoned in Castle Ward as residents did not like other peoples’ cars being legally parked in front of their properties.

 

Following discussion, Members unanimously resolved to approve priorities for action as below (amended in bold/struck through text):

       i.          Enforcement and City Ranger patrols in the City Centre

·       Also to include fly tipping (investigation and clean up).

     ii.          Dog warden patrols

   iii.          Enforcement patrols to address abandoned bicycles in the West/Central area vehicles in the Castle Ward

Lead officer: Wendy Johnston


15/03/2018 - Minutes ref: 4629    Recommendations Approved

Decision Maker: Community Services Scrutiny Committee

Made at meeting: 15/03/2018 - Community Services Scrutiny Committee

Decision published: 10/04/2018

Effective from: 15/03/2018

Decision:

The minutes of the meeting held on 18 January 2018 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.


15/05/2018 - Allocation of Sharing Prosperity Fund ref: 4660    Recommendations Approved

To decide on the allocation of Sharing Prosperity Fund to projects that support the outcomes of the Council's Anti-Poverty Strategy.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Communities.

Decision published: 10/04/2018

Effective from: 15/05/2018

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Council has an Anti-Poverty Strategy, which sets out a range of ongoing and new actions to address poverty in Cambridge over a three year period from 2017/18 to 2019/20.  A dedicated Sharing Prosperity Fund (SPF) was created in 2014 to support projects which contribute to the objectives of the strategy. The Officer’s report presented details of 8 projects, which the Executive Councillor for Communities is recommended to approve for funding from the SPF during 2018/19 and 2019/20. The proposals are either for new projects, or for continued funding for existing projects.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Approved the proposed allocation of funding from the Sharing Prosperity Fund as set out in Table 1 (paragraph 3.5 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 Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

       i.          Councillor Gillespie referred to comments he previously made in October 2017 Community Services Committee. He thought the Anti-Poverty Strategy was good but could do more to anticipate trends that would affect the ability of people to avoid food poverty. Climate change and Brexit were both likely to affect the cost of importing food, and Cambridge has a particularly high reliance on imported food. He would like to see more action to increase food security because it would affect the poorest the most. He suggested the Council needed a sustainable food strategy, with a section on food poverty.

     ii.          Councillor Bird expressed concern about Universal Credit as people may become homeless if they could not pay bills.

 

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

       i.          The Officer’s report presented details of 8 projects that could receive SPF funding. It also set out expenditure to date in Appendix A. Some projects had received more SPF funding than others, and over a longer term. Other projects were funded for shorter periods if they subsequently received additional funding from other sources (not listed in the Officer’s report).

     ii.          A further report on project outputs and outcomes would come back to Community Services Committee in 2019.

   iii.          (Ref Appendix A) it was proposed that further SPF funding be  given to existing projects, such as Digital Access and Active in Cambridge, in 2018/19 to provide extra activities and outputs.

   iv.          Food security was an important consideration and the city needed to live sustainably. There were no specific SPF projects to cover this in this round of funding, but the Council was working with Cambridge Sustainable Food to support this objective as part of wider work being carried out to deliver the Council’s Climate Change Strategy.

    v.          If the proposed Universal Credit Outreach project were approved for SPF funding, CAB advisors would be on hand in JobCentre Plus Offices to provide financial advice to residents receiving Universal Credit. This would be similar to the work in Great Yarmouth, which has proved very successful.

 

The Executive Councillor responded to Councillor Gillespie:

       i.          The Council was also working with Cambridge Sustainable Food in respect for their plans for a 'Food Hub' in the city. They work with Food Cycle and other groups in the city in promoting the preparation of healthy, low-cost meals for families on low incomes. The Council already helped people with debt and money problems through Sharing Prosperity Fund initiatives, such as the 'Advice on Prescription' project.

     ii.          The Council Revenue and Benefits team have been preparing for the launch of Universal Credit for several years and were well-placed to ensure help is on hand for those affected by benefit changes.

 

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Lead officer: Andrew Limb


15/03/2018 - Hobson’s Brook Corridor 10 Year Vision ref: 4659    Recommendations Approved

Recommendations to improve, protect and enhance Hobson's Brook.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Open Spaces and City Services

Decision published: 10/04/2018

Effective from: 15/03/2018

Decision:

Matter for Decision

Hobson’s Brook Corridor is an important green infrastructure corridor extending between the natural spring at Nine Wells on Cambridge’s southern fringe and running northwards in to the city centre.

 

Hobson’s Brook Corridor 10 Year Vision (covering the period 2018 – 2028) describes the nature and character of the corridor, defines various pressures faced and outlines management and maintenance priorities over the next 10 years; based upon an assessment of historical records and more recent data gathered.

 

It is intended to guide activities which focus on water quality improvements, ecological enhancements, maintenance and restoration work along with community engagement activities within the corridor.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Streets and Open Spaces

       i.          Endorsed the Hobson’s Brook Corridor 10 Year Vision as an evidence base to inform planning policy and decisions, and to influence management and maintenance priorities.

     ii.          Supported the establishment of a delivery action plan setting out future investment priorities in order to assist obtaining funded as needed.

 

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 Sustainable Drainage Engineer.

 

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

       i.          There was a disappointing response rate to the Hobson Conduit public consultation.

     ii.          Queried if land owners near the Conduit, particularly the University of Cambridge, were disengaged. If so, would this cause difficulties regarding consent and funding for future work?

   iii.          Councillor O’Connell offered to help engage the University of Cambridge in the Hobson Conduit public consultation process in her capacity as Ward Councillor.

   iv.          Historically the Market Square fountain was an important feature as the end of the Conduit and a source of drinking water. Requested this be brought back into the Vision document, possibly as a way to reduce the number of plastic drinking bottles in the city.

    v.          Raised concern about the number of pollutants and chemicals that could affect the Conduit and local water supplies through surface run off from agricultural and industrial areas in/around/bordering the city.

 

The Sustainable Drainage Engineer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

       i.          The University of Cambridge were directly engaged through stakeholder consultation. Further engagement work would continue in future.

     ii.          It was unclear if future problems would arise from stakeholder disengagement.

   iii.          The Vision document was not a contentious document, which may explain the low consultation response rate. The Conduit was seen as an asset to the city.

   iv.          The majority (70%) of consultees were involved in earlier stakeholder engagement work ie landowners along the Conduit corridor such as the University of Cambridge.

    v.          There was greater public interest in the visible parts of the Conduit (eg the open brook) than underground sections. Both were equally important but the open sections had a higher profile as a public amenity. Funding would be easier to target for the open sections.

   vi.          Various water quality tests were undertaken over time to ensure there were no adverse impacts from local farms or (new) developments. There were no issues to report at present eg floating pennywort or pesticide pollution. Part of the checks were to measure and collate what was occurring with the brook ie what was in/on it and whether this was good or bad.

 vii.          Officers engaged with Pemberton Farms who were major land owners on the south of the city. Land use and ownership around the brook was changing over time.

viii.          Local wildlife charities were engaged in the consultation rather than national ones as they were seen as more appropriate.

 

The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

Councillors Abbott and Barnett did not vote due to their declarations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations. She undertook to raise the suggestion of reconnecting the Market Square fountain to Hobson’s Conduit (as a potential drinking fountain) with the Planning Department and Executive Councillor for Environmental Services and City Centre.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Lead officer: Alistair Wilson


15/03/2018 - Annual Update on the Work of our Strategic Partnerships - Communities Portfolio ref: 4661    Recommendations Approved

To confirm the continued involvement of the Council in the partnerships based on an informed view of their added value and achievements.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Communities.

Decision published: 10/04/2018

Effective from: 15/03/2018

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report provides an update on the work of the Health and Wellbeing Board and Children’s Trust as a part of the Council’s commitment given in its “Principles of Partnership Working”, to set out annual reports on the work of the key partnerships it is involved with.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Communities

Agreed to continue to work with the Health and Wellbeing Board and the Children’s Area Partnership, at a time of change, to ensure that public agencies and others can together address the strategic issues affecting Cambridge and that the concerns of Cambridge citizens are responded to.

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

This item was not requested for pre-scrutiny and the committee made no comments in response to the report from the Head of Corporate Strategy.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Lead officer: Graham Saint