Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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