A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register

Decisions

Decisions published

20/11/2023 - General Fund Medium Term Financial Strategy 2023/24 to 2032/33 and indicative strategic budget proposals for consultation ref: 5529    Recommendations Approved

To agree the budget strategy and timetable for 2024/25, the net savings requirements by year for the next 5 years, revised General Fund revenue, funding and reserves projections and the budget consultation

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

Decision published: 26/01/2024

Effective from: 20/11/2023

Decision:

Matter for Decision

 

Overview of Medium Term Financial Strategy

 

·                 This report presents and recommends the budget strategy for the 2024/25 budget cycle as outlined in the MTFS October 2023 document, which is attached and to be agreed (Appendix 1). Also presented at Appendix 2 is the proposed budget consultation for 2024/25.

·                 This report also recommends the approval of new and amended revenue and capital items as shown in the MTFS.

·                 At this stage in the 2024/254 budget process the range of assumptions on which the Budget Setting Report (BSR) published in February 2023 was based need to be reviewed in light of the latest information available to determine whether any aspects of the strategy need to be revised. This then provides the basis for updating the budget for 2024/25 and to provide indicative budgets to 2033/34. All references to the recommendations to Appendices, pages and sections relate to MTFS Version 1.0.

·                 The recommended budget strategy is based on the outcome of the review undertaken together with financial modelling and projections of the council’s expenditure and resources in light of local policies and priorities, national policy and economic context. Service managers have identified financial and budget issues and pressures, and this information has been used to inform the MTFS.

Decisions of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

The Executive Councillor is asked to recommend to Council:

 

General Fund Revenue

 

·                 To agree the incorporation of changed assumptions as presented in Section 3 [pages 12 and 13], which provide an indication of the net savings requirement, by year for the next five years [page 16], and revised projections for General Fund (GF) revenue and funding as shown in Appendix A [page 34] and reserves, Section 6 [page 26].

·                 2.2 To agree the 2023/24 revenue budget proposal as set out in Section 4 [page 15], for a £651k increase in pay budgets to reflect the recently agreed pay settlement for 2023/24.

Capital

 

·                 To note the changes to the capital plan, as set out in Section 5 [pages 22 to 25]. and Appendix B [pages 35 to 44] of the MTFS document.

·                 To agree a capital spending proposal, rephasing and scheme deletions/reductions as set out below.

 

Reserves

 

·                 To agree changes to GF reserve levels, the prudent minimum balance being set at £5.934 million and the target level at £7.121 million as detailed in Section 6 [page 27].

·                 To approve the contribution of £700k of general reserves and £274k of funding released from capital schemes to the Our Cambridge Transformation earmarked reserve as set out in Section 4 [pages 19 to 21].

·                 To approve the council’s reserve policy as set out in Appendix E [page 47].

 

MTFS and budget consultation

 

·                 The Executive Councillor is also asked to recommend that The Executive agree the budget consultation, which is based on the presented MTFS and will run from 21 November 2023 to 14 January 2024.

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 Chief Finance Officer.

 

The Chief Finance Officer, Deputy Chief Finance Officer and the Chief Operating Officer said the following in response to Members’ questions:

 

      i.          Regarding an enquiry as to why there was not a draft budget at this stage, stated that received feedback that there was a wish to extend the period of the budget consultation. Therefore at this stage there were no firm proposals. Were expecting a considerable amount of feedback as a result of the budget consultation extension that could be worked into the budget in January. That would give residents a longer time for residents to reply to the consultation.

     ii.          Regarding scenario modelling on Pg. 55 of the report a report, best- and worst-case scenarios are modelled. In general terms, these cases were dependent on assumptions regarding interest rates.

   iii.          What had been modelled on Pg. 55 were considered reasonably possible situations.

   iv.          If inflation rates stay high and if local government pay settlement was higher and financing costs increased there would be less resources available.

    v.          The MTFS was revised every year concerning the target of savings needed. The current target is £6 million saving in the next 3 years. The MTFS was a rolling forecast and may change going forward.

   vi.          There were tables on page 68 of the report which give 3 scenarios for the Our Cambridge programme.

 vii.          Expect savings unrelated to the Our Cambridge Programme to come forward. Work was being done now. At this stage this was work in progress.

viii.          The Chief Operating Officer added that they were being cautious with numbers regarding the Our Cambridge programme. Senior Officers were developing a better evidence base. This was already making an impact. The work of the programme was enabling groups to find additional savings.

   ix.          Need to understand better the ICT operating model. Need to invest in changing ICT model to produce savings in the future.

    x.          Regarding the speed at which change was taking place, the Our Cambridge programme was a purpose led one, not just a cost saving exercise. In order to do that work there would need to be a considered process. Senior Officers were attempting to change the culture at the council. Officers were now looking for change proactively rather than acting reactively.

   xi.          Had been in contacted with Officers responsible for grants where funds had been returned were available to be used within Cambridgeshire if the eligibility requirements were met.

 xii.          Regarding a question about the table on page 48 of the report which highlights the business rates forecast and the wording of the last paragraph on page 40 which states “It is intended to offset this target by allocating £1.5m pa of Business Rates retention funds to the General Fund as this is the forecast minimum baseline after the reset of the Business Rates retention. The balance will be delivered through service transformation” the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources stated that the term “service transformation” was meant in a general way regarding all service and was not specific to the Our Cambridge programme.

xiii.          Regarding the requested additional funding for the transformation programme listed in Recommendation 2.6 of the report the funds requested were for an extension of the programme from November 2024-December 2025. Funding was for staffing to provide additional support to the work that needed to be done. Also a staff development programme.

xiv.          Regarding Capital Programme schemes where the funding had been repurposed these schemes were reviewed on an annual basis.

xv.          Regarding the Reserves Policy, and how Council would deal with excesses it was dependant on business rates growth. These funds were not put into reserves until the growth would be achieved. There were indicative amounts listed for prospective spending in the report depending on level of reserves available. Work was in progress to identify use for different levels of reserves when the amount is certain. Not yet at a stage to put proposal together to state what reserves could be used for to benefit residents.

xvi.          On Pages 60-61 regarding capital expenditure and the East Barnwell Community Centre, Assistant Director, Development, Place Group stated that he felt that council was in a reasonable place regarding negotiations with the Cambridgeshire County Council for use of land.  Felt the funds involved were in line with land transfer deals. The benefits of accepting the current deal outweigh the negatives of re-negotiating.

The Committee

2.1: The Scrutiny Committee approved the recommendations by 5-0-3.

2.2: The Scrutiny Committee unanimously approved the recommendations.

2.3: The Scrutiny Committee approved the recommendations by 6-0-2.

2.4: The Scrutiny Committee unanimously approved the recommendations.

2.5: The Scrutiny Committee unanimously approved the recommendations.

2.6: The Scrutiny Committee approved the recommendations by 5-0-3.

2.7: The Scrutiny Committee approved the recommendations by 6-2-0.

2.8: The Scrutiny Committee approved the recommendations by 5-3-0.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources approved the recommendations.

 

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

 

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Lead officer: Caroline Ryba


09/11/2023 - Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant Relocation Development Consent Order (DCO) Local Impact Report ref: 5515    Recommendations Approved

To endorse the draft Local Impact Report for submission to the Planning Inspectorate and delegate authority to the Joint Director of Planning in consultation with the Chair, Vice Chair and Opposition Spokes of the Committee to make any minor changes to the Local Impact Report as appropriate.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure

Decision published: 26/01/2024

Effective from: 09/11/2023

Decision:

Matter for Decision

To agree the draft Local Impact Report (LIR) for submission to the Planning Inspectorate in relation to the Anglian Water’s Development Consent Order (DCO) application to the Secretary of State for the relocation of Cambridge Wastewater Treatment Plant from Cowley Road, Cambridge, to a new site between Horningsea, Fen Ditton and Stow cum Quy, adjacent to the A14 in South Cambridgeshire.

 

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

      i.          Agreed the Cambridge Wastewater Treatment Plant Relocation Project Local Impact Report in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report, in respect of the Development Consent Order (DCO) application submitted by Anglian Water, and delegated authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development to submit the report on behalf of Cambridge City Council, subject to any changes made by the Executive Councillor and any minor amendments to the Local Impact Report required in the interests of accuracy or clarity.

ii.       Agreed to delegate to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, the authority to take all associated action necessary in the interests of the efficient and timely conduct of the Council’s compliance with the DCO procedures including but not limited to:

·       Prepare the Council’s responses to any written questions from the Examining Authority during the DCO Examination and to submit those to the Examining Authority.

·       Settle the content of and submit any Written Representations to the Examining Authority.

·       To negotiate, settle and complete any legal agreements relevant to secure the granting of a DCO pursuant to the application.

·       Settling and the submission of the Statement of Common Ground to the Examining Authority.

·       The instruction of witnesses and legal advisors throughout the Examination process.

·       The discharge of DCO requirements made under any development consent order granted by Secretary of State.

 

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 Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, the Principal Planner and Senior Planner.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development and Principal Planner said the following:

      i.          The response being provided from the Committee was on behalf of the City Council as an interested party in the Development Consent Order process. The City Council was involved with Anglian Water in the promotion of development on land at North East Cambridge. The assessment of Local Impacts in the report had been led by the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service on behalf of the City Council. There was therefore separation between the City Councils development interests and its role as the Local Authority responding to the Development Consent Order application.

     ii.          South Cambridgeshire District Council’s (SCDC) LIR had identified several areas that required further clarification and commentary relevant to the local area; there were also some similarities to Cambridge City.

   iii.          Collectively the City Council, SCDC, and Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) had sought to be coherent and consistent where appropriate with the assessments and comments made.

  iv.           The three authorities were jointly instructing a single barrister in the presentation of each Councils position. 

    v.          One of the practical difficulties of the DCO process related to the timetable for responses by the Council to the Examining Authority. For this reason, consulting every time with the Executive Councillor under the scheme of delegation to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, would present difficulties. For this reason, and noting the previous delegation provided by the Committee to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, the report sought to confirm delegation to officers for the handling of the examination process.

  vi.           It was important to ensure a response could be provided (as authorised) in the time frame provided, rather than not to reply because there had to be engagement with the Executive Councillor. Because of the strict timetable set by the process, requiring consultation with the Executive Councillor and Opposition Spokes to any further submissions as a matter of course, risked Cambridge City Council’s views being excluded from consideration during the process. 

 vii.          If the delegation was to be changed/revised to require such consultation and engagement, then this would give rise to a need for additional staff resources would have to be deployed to the examination at an extra cost.

viii.          Officers would seek to share with Executive Councillor and Opposition Spokes information on the questions asked by the Examining Authority and officers’ response throughout the process. 

   ix.          The deliverability of the project would not be a matter for the City Council to consider in depth. This would be tested through the examination process.

    x.          Although the relocation was a joint venture partnership with Anglian Water officers could not comment on the functions of contractual arrangements. The Committee should focus on the potential benefits and the impacts if the project was to take place.

   xi.          Officers from various departments across the three local authorities had held several conversations with the Department of Levelling Up, Homes England and the Cambridge Delivery Group through Peter Freeman in respect of the work of the Cambridge Delivery Group.  Further information on these meetings could be brought back to the Committee; noted the request for a précis of the topics discussed.

 xii.          Noted the comment that all future reports brought to Committee on the proposed relocation of the Water Treatment Works should highlight all wards and not just East Chesterton on the covering sheet. 

xiii.          The Planning Inspectorate had issued a series of questions which related to the issues of impacts upon the public rights of way and of the impact from discharges of water treated at the proposed new site back into the River Cam. These were matters for the applicant to answer, not the City Council.

xiv.          Officers had highlighted various matters on the rights of use of the River Cam and public rights of way to CCC as the highway authority, to ensure that issues would be covered in the CCC LIR. This included the potential impact on boating and access to the River Cam during construction and the closure and diversions of public rights of way to Honey Hill and the surrounding area.

xv.          The matter of the visitor centre had been covered in the applicant’s submission; Officers had not considered what impact this would have in the city but had noted the comments for future consideration.

xvi.          The potential future impact of the wastewater transfer tunnel vent stack would likely be a material planning consideration for the City Council’s Planning Committee to consider alongside any proposals for the redevelopment of the existing Wastewater Treatment Works.

xvii.          The Water Resource Management Plan process took into consideration whether measures to secure future water supply and improved management that Cambridge Water were promoting would be sufficient impact to allow for the additional demand from this potential development and the Northeast Area Action Plan. This would be a decision for the Department of Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Environment Agency in due course. The measures included proposals for bulk water transfer and a potential new reservoir in the Fens.

xviii.          If the DCO was approved, there would be a period of construction of the new water treatment works, followed by a period of testing and decommissioning of the existing water treatment works before new homes would be occupied on the site.

xix.          If the DCO was successful this would enable the objectives set out in the Northeast Area Action Plan to be progressed; however, new development would not start straight away and would only begin towards the end of the decade.

xx.          The DCO scheme needed to be assessed on the basis of the scheme forming the current application.

xxi.          Officers would require an Odour Management Plan to be submitted as a DCO requirement, the plan would have parameters in place. If an odour limit was exceeded in a certain location, there had to be mitigation in place. Environmental Health Officers were satisfied with the methodology and the approach that the applicant had put forward.

xxii.          CCC as the Highway Authority had carried out a transport assessment to look at what impact the DCO would have on the local area. It was suggested that traffic would be removed from the Milton junction, with reassignment of some traffic to the east. It was concluded the construction traffic impact (including heavy commercial vehicles) would be very modest when considering the overall number of vehicle trips currently on the network. Therefore, this wasn’t something that the CCC felt would justify an objection, however, mitigations measures were being considered.

xxiii.          Noted the comments that the points referenced in paragraphs 8.12 and 9.24 of the Officer’s report should be strengthened.

xxiv.          Officers were working with a wide range of stakeholders to understand the levels of risk concerning water shortages and the solutions and safeguarding the chalk streams in the local area relating to future development of the Greater Cambridge area.

 

The Committee voted 7 votes to 1 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

 

Lead officer: Philippa Kelly


21/11/2023 - Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Medium Term Financial Strategy ref: 5509    Recommendations Approved

Approval of latest financial assumptions for the HRA financial forecasts, of any in year budgetary changes for the HRA and of the approach to setting the budget for 2024/25.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing

Decision published: 26/01/2024

Effective from: 21/11/2023

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) is one of two long-term strategic financial planning documents produced each year for housing landlord services provided by Cambridge City Council.

 

The HRA MTFS provides an opportunity to review the assumptions incorporated as part of the longer-term financial planning process, recommending any changes in response to new legislative requirements, variations in external national and local economic factors and amendments to service delivery methods, allowing incorporation into budgets and financial forecasts at the earliest opportunity.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness

i.    Approved the Housing Revenue Account Medium Term Financial Strategy attached, to include all proposals for changes in:

a.    Financial assumptions as detailed in Appendix C of the document.

b.    2023/24 and future year revenue budgets, resulting from changes in financial assumptions and the financial consequences of changes in these and the need to respond to unavoidable pressures and meet new service demands, as introduced in Section 8, detailed in Appendix E and summarised in Appendix G of the Officer’s report.

ii.  Approved that delegated authority be given to the Assistant Director of Assets and Property or the Assistant Director of Development to be in a position to confirm that the authority can renew its investment partner status with Homes England.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness recommended Council to:

iii. Approve proposals for changes in existing housing capital budgets, as introduced in Section 9 and detailed in Appendix F of the Officer’s report, with the resulting position summarised in Appendix H, for decision at Council on 30 November 2023.

iv.Approve proposals for new housing capital budgets, as introduced in Sections 6 and 7 and detailed in Appendix Eof the Officer’s report, with the resulting position summarised in Appendix H, for decision at Council on 30 November 2023.

v.  Approve the revised funding mix for the delivery of the Housing Capital Programme, recognising the latest assumptions for the use of Grant, Right to Buy Receipts, HRA Resources, Major Repairs Allowance and HRA borrowing, as summarised in Appendix H.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance and Business Manager.

 

The Head of Finance and Business Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The transformation programme was looking at the way the city operations team worked and was reviewing the services provided across responsive and void repairs. A lot of work was being done across the council to ensure quality services were being provided to tenants.

     ii.          Information was provided to tenants about the financial support available to them. As part of communicating about rent increases tenants were reminded that they could speak with the council’s Financial Inclusion Officers to ensure that tenants were claiming all the financial support that they are entitled to. Specialist software also enabled information to be targeted to specific groups of individuals again to ensure that they were claiming financial support where they were able to.

   iii.          Rent restructuring was introduced in 2002 and this produced a calculated rent for each property the ‘target or formula rent’, which was initially above what tenants were paying in the vast majority of cases. Over a 10-year period tenants were moved from the rent that they were paying towards the ‘target rent’. Central government stopped the ability to move tenants to target rents; this could only happen when properties became vacant. The Council would increase rent to target rents when properties were void. However currently the cost of repairing void properties was higher than the increased rental income from those properties which had been increased to target rents. 

   iv.          Would check after the meeting whether there was any difference in tenant’s ability to pay their rent between those in affordable rented homes compared with social rented homes.

    v.          There was a trade-off between increasing rents and providing improvements to homes which would reduce energy costs. Before the Autumn Statement was released the next day it was not known whether Central Government would introduce a cap on rent increases from April 2024.

   vi.          Noted the net increase in council homes was relatively low but this was affected by [in some years] significant levels of tenants exercising their right to buy their property. Also a number of new homes were being provided as a result of redevelopment of existing sites, so some homes have had to be demolished in order to deliver a net gain of properties. Going forward expected to see an increase in the number of net new homes being delivered for example the East Barnwell redevelopment was expected to deliver a net gain of 110 new homes on that site and further new homes would be delivered at the Eddeva Park site. Cambridge City Council had done very well in comparison to other Councils.

 vii.          The Council was working towards housing stock being EPC ‘C’ standard by 2035.

viii.          The rent standard allowed the council to increase rents by ‘up to CPI plus 1%’ (with September being the CPI used). Therefore 7.7% was the maximum that rents could be increased by next year.

   ix.          The decision around market housing and rules on investments sat with the Section 151 Officer to be able to demonstrate that that any investment was not being done primarily for yield. For example, the provision of market housing on a scheme was not being done to generate profit for the council but was being done in order to deliver affordable housing.

    x.          To provide a comparison of our proposed borrowing compared to other councils, we would need to individually investigate the level of borrowing other local authorities had in their business plans for new build going forward. Cambridge had moved at quite a pace in delivering new homes within the HRA and were perhaps further ahead in terms of the planned level of borrowing compared to other councils.

   xi.          The Council’s direct emissions target for net zero was 2030 and not 2050 as included in the report.  

 

Post meeting clarification – The current climate change strategy includes two key items:

·       The target to reduce the Council’s direct emissions to net zero carbon by 2030.

·       The vision to reach net zero carbon in Cambridge by 2030, subject to Government, industry and regulators implementing the necessary changes to enable the city to achieve this. 

 

The Committee resolved to endorse the recommendation i to ii by 8 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions.

 

The Committee resolved to endorse the recommendation iii to v by 6 votes to 0 with 3 abstentions.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness 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: Julia Hovells


21/11/2023 - Report on Redevelopment Scheme at East Barnwell ref: 5508    Recommendations Approved

This report outlines work undertaken toward development of a deliverable regeneration scheme at East Barnwell, and seeks approval by the Executive Councillor for the proposed development and associated budget.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing

Decision published: 26/01/2024

Effective from: 21/11/2023

Decision:

Matter for Decision

Following the completion of the report ‘East Barnwell Development & Regeneration Project: Masterplan for East Barnwell’ work has continued in conjunction with the County Council and the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) to bring forward a scheme to provide for the regeneration of the centre of Barnwell to include:

·       A community centre

·       A library

·       A pre-school facility

·       Commercial premises

·       Open space

·       High quality sustainable housing including affordable housing

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness

      i.          Approved that a scheme be brought forward for Sites 1 and 2 and included in the Housing Capital Programme, with the latest capital budget being £50,306,000 to cover all site assembly, construction costs, professional fees and further associated fees, to deliver a 100% affordable housing scheme which meets the identified need in Cambridge City. Budget will be drawn down from the sum already ear-marked and approved for investment in new homes.

     ii.          Authorised the Assistant Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing to approve variations to the scheme including the number of units and mix of property types, sizes and tenure as outlined in this report.

   iii.          Approved that delegated authority be given to the Executive Councillor for Housing in conjunction with the Assistant Director to enable Sites 1 and 2 to be developed through Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) subject to a value for money assessment to be carried out on behalf of the Council.

   iv.          Delegated authority to the Assistant Director to commence Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) proceedings on leasehold properties to be demolished to enable the development, should these be required.

    v.          Delegated authority to the Assistant Director to serve initial Demolition Notices under the Housing Act 1985.

   vi.          Delegated authority to the Head of Housing to approve a local lettings plan for the proposed development on Sites 1 and 2.

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

 

 vii.          Approved that within the scheme to be brought forward for Sites 1 and 2 the following community facilities should be provided:

a.    A community centre.

b.    A library.

c.    A pre-school facility.

d.    A bowling green and pavilion (at the Abbey Leisure Complex).

e.    An extended Multi-Use Games Area to include provision for tennis (at the Abbey Leisure Complex).

f.      Addition play facilities at Peverel Road Recreation Ground.

viii.          Noted that the budget for the community facilities of £4,169,072 has been recommended to Council through the General Fund Medium Term Financial Strategy process (this being the gross cost of the community facilities; note that off-setting financial contributions were forecast at £704,000 which create an estimated net cost of £3,465,072; this did not take into account the value of the development of Site 3).

   ix.          Authorised the Assistant Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor to agree the terms of an agreement with the County Council and to enter into that agreement for:

a.    the transfer of Site 3.

b.    the granting of a long lease on the proposed library and pre-school facility at a peppercorn but subject to a service charge.

c.    the granting of a license to landscape the Highways Land.

d.    the recognition by the County Council of the City Council’s beneficial ownership of the existing library site.

    x.          Authorised the Assistant Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor to arrange for the development of a market led scheme on Site 3 by the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP).

 

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 Development Manager, Housing Development Agency.

 

The Senior Development Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The proposals for site 3 were not as advanced as those for site 1 and 2 but site 3 could possibly be used for development of around 9 houses.

     ii.          If the Homes England grant funding was not forthcoming, then the development would need to be reassessed. Noted councillors’ comment that this should be included on the risk register. Pre-application discussions had taken place with the Planning Department; was cautious about the level of risk.

   iii.          Noted comments made about single aspect homes. The site had a number of constraints and every effort was being made to reduce the number of single aspect homes.

   iv.          Other sites had followed the council’s rent policy for affordable homes which was 60% of medium market rents, this site was different to that.  Was delivering 40% affordable housing at social rent; the balance would be at 80% medium market rents. Wanted to support low-income households who were not in receipt of benefits and therefore needed to have properties available at lower social rents. 

    v.          To calculate biodiversity net gain, the biodiversity level would be assessed now and then officers would look to see what could be delivered on the site. There would be sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) and rain gardens. Much consideration had been given to the layout of the public open space which was currently largely grass and a lot was currently closed off. Wanted to try and retain a number of the key trees. There was also an opportunity to plant more hedgerows.

   vi.          Discussions had taken place with Abbey People regarding the Food Hub, there was still plenty of time to follow this up as it would follow the delivery of the community centre on site 1. Officers in the Community Services Team were also working with Abbey People regarding the Food Hub business model.

 vii.          Any variation to the delivery of 100% affordable housing on the site would need to come back to Housing Scrutiny Committee for approval.

viii.          Commercial units were being provided within phase 1 of the development; various options for these units was being considered.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness approved recommendations i - vi and the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources approved recommendations vii - x.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Lead officer: Ben Binns


02/11/2023 - To implement the National Joint Council for Local Government Services (NJC) Pay Award for 2023-24 for employees on Bands 1-11. ref: 5479    Recommendations Approved

To implement the National Joint Council for Local Government Services (NJC) Pay Award for 2023-24 for employees on Bands 1-11.

Decision Maker: Civic Affairs

Decision published: 22/11/2023

Effective from: 02/11/2023

Decision:

Cambridge City Council

Record of Officer Urgent Decision

To Implement the National Joint Council Local Government Services Pay Agreement 2023

 

Decision taken: To implement the National Joint Council for Local Government Services (NJC) Pay Award for 2023-24 for employees on Bands 1-11.

 

Decision of: Chief Operating Officer

 

Reference: Delegation of Civic Affairs Committee

 

Date of decision: 02 November 2023

 

Matter for Decision: Decision delegated from Civic Affairs Committee

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: The pay award for staff on City pay bands 1-11 is determined 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 outlined in employment contracts.

 

Reason for the decision including any background papers considered: To implement the nationally agreed pay award for staff on City bands 1-11 following receipt of notification by circular from the National Joint Council for local government services (NJC) dated 01 November 2023. The award is for a flat rate of £1,925 on each pay point from 1 - 43, and an increase of 3.88% for scale points 44 – 56. The award is backdated to April 2023.

 

Conflict of interest and dispensation granted by Chief Operating Officer:

The Chief Operating Officer is exercising this decision as the Head of People has a personal interest in this pay award.

 

Comments: This decision is taken in accordance with the delegated authority from Civic Affairs Committee to the Chief Operating Officer, 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 People and a record of that advice be made available to the public.

 

Contact for further information: Lynsey Fulcher, Head of People

Lead officer: Lynsey Fulcher


02/11/2023 - To Implement the Joint Negotiating Committee for Chief Executives of Local Authorities Pay Award for 2023-24 ref: 5478    Recommendations Approved

To Implement the Joint Negotiating Committee for Chief Executives of Local Authorities Pay Award for 2023-24

Decision Maker: Civic Affairs

Decision published: 22/11/2023

Effective from: 02/11/2023

Decision:

Cambridge City Council

Record of Officer Delegated Decision

To Implement the Joint Negotiating Committee for Chief Executives of Local Authorities Pay Award for 2023-24.

 

Decision taken: 02 November 2023

 

Decision of: Head of People

 

Reference: Delegation of Civic Affairs Committee

 

Date of decision: 02 November 2023

 

Matter for Decision: Decision delegated from Civic Affairs Committee

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected: The pay award for chief executive level posts is determined 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 outlined in employment contracts.

 

Reason for the decision including any background papers considered: To implement the nationally agreed pay award for chief executives following receipt of notification by circular from the Joint Negotiating Committee for Chief Executives of Local Authorities dated 01 November 2023. The award is for an increase of 3.5% on each pay point and is backdated to 1 April 2023.

 

Conflict of interest and dispensation granted by Chief Executive: The Head of People is exercising this delegation, the Chief Executive has a personal interest.  The matter is delegated to the Head of People.

 

Comments: This decision is taken in accordance with the delegated authority from Civic Affairs Committee to the Head of People, 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 People and a record of that advice be made available to the public.

 

Contact for further information: Lynsey Fulcher, Head of People

 

Lead officer: Lynsey Fulcher