Decisions

Matter for Decision

The report sought agreement of the Proposed Submission North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (AAP) that establishes the Councils, policies, and proposals for managing development, regeneration, and investment in North East Cambridge over the next twenty years and beyond.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport.

      i.         Agreed the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) (Appendix A1) and Proposed Submission Policies Map (Appendix A2) for future public consultation, contingent upon the separate Development Control Order being undertaken by Anglian Water for the relocation of the Waste Water Treatment Plant being approved.

    ii.         Noted the Draft Final Sustainability Report (Appendix B of the Officer’s report), and Habitats Regulation Assessment (Appendix C of the Officer’s report) and agree them as supporting documents to the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) that will also be subject to future public consultation.

   iii.         Agreed the following supporting documents to future public consultation: 

a.         Statement of Consultation, including the Councils’ consideration of and responses to representations received to the draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (Regulation 18) consultation 2020 (Appendix D of the Officer’s report) 

b.         Duty to Cooperate Compliance Statement (Appendix (Appendix E of the Officer’s report) 

c.         Draft Duty to Cooperate Statement of Common Ground (Appendix F of the Officer’s report)

d.         Equalities Impact Assessment (Appendix G of the Officer’s report) 

e.         Topic papers (Appendix H of the Officer’s report). 

  iv.         Agreed the findings of the following background evidence documents prepared by the Councils that have informed the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission and are proposed to accompany future public consultation: 

a.         Typologies Study and Development Capacity Assessment (Appendix I1 of the Officer’s report); 

b.         Surface Water Drainage Core Principles (Appendix I2 of the Officer’s report)

c.         Chronology of the feasibility investigations of redevelopment of the Cambridge Wastewater Treatment Plant (Appendix I3 of the Officer’s report).

    v.         Noted the findings of the background evidence documents that have informed the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission and are proposed to accompany the public consultation (see Background documents to the Officer’s report)

  vi.         Agreed that any subsequent material amendments be made by the Cambridge Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport in consultation with Chair and Spokes, and by the South Cambridgeshire Lead Member for Planning, both in consultation with the Joint Local Planning Advisory Group (JLPAG).

 vii.         Agreed that any subsequent minor amendments and editing changes be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic in consultation with Cambridge Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport and by the South Cambridgeshire Lead Member for Planning.

 

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Principal Planning Policy Officer.

 

In response to Member’s comments the Principal Planning Policy Officer, Strategic Planning Consultant and Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development said the following:

 

      i.         As part of the AAP the retail and town centre evidence-based study had been updated, considering the revised development numbers and amendments to the spatial framework.

    ii.         Five local centres had now been proposed rather than the original four.

   iii.         All homes would be within a five-minute walk of the retail centre that would accommodate resident’s day to day needs.

  iv.         The shop policy had been designed to encourage a variety of individual retailers. In total there would be around 107 units available.

    v.         Appreciated that residents would need access to supermarkets and the AAP outlined five food stores to come forward within those centres.

  vi.         Advised that people’s shopping habits had changed with an increase in on-line shopping; were promoting consolidation hubs which would minimise vehicle movements within the APP area.

 vii.         With no onsite secondary school provision, safe and convenient pedestrian and cycle routes for children to access local schools in the area had been explored.

viii.         Welcomed the redevelopment of the Cambridge Business Park which would include a mix of business, residential and community use.

  ix.         One of the constraints of the Science Park was the lengthy leases that some of the buildings had, if development had been allocated on to those individual plots it would not be possible to demonstrate that the Plan was deliverable within the plan period.

    x.         Envisaged that residential streets in the AAP area would not be a place where vehicles would be parked, and the streets would become part of public life.  

  xi.         Reluctant to place a definition on the term ‘local people’ used in the AAP. However, there was a local connection test used for brownfield sites which could be applicable.

 xii.         Privately managed community facilities were secured with a community use agreement through planning permission which ensured community use. Those facilities also had to remain commercially viable.

xiii.         Affordable housing needed to be truly affordable. Housing officers would assist in setting the correct rent levels.

xiv.         Currently there were provision for three primary schools. Discussions were being held with County Council Officers to rethink how a school building should be designed, moving away from the single storey land hungry element, and becoming multi-functional.

xv.         A secondary school had not been proposed as The County Council forecast did not deem a secondary school necessary in the AAP area. This would also mean those living in the area would integrate more widely with those outside of the area.

xvi.         Secondary schools were incredibly land hungry and expensive to deliver and there would be significant implications on some of the delivery of the AAP should such a school be built.

xvii.         Agreed it was important to understand the delivery of spaces and the quantity of activities that could take place within them.

xviii.         Recognised the significance of the relationship between density, open space and the impact on residents including their mental health.

xix.         Officers had spent large amount of time over a number of years speaking with representatives from the Science Park to discuss how the space could be integrated within the community.

xx.         Acknowledged the comment that the Arcadia development was viewed as ‘insular’ by residents and had engaged with the landowners to ensure that new facilities were much more generous and open. 

xxi.         Noted the concern expressed regarding the amount of formal open space provision.

 

Councillor Bick proposed and Councillor Porrer seconded the following amendment to the recommendation (additional text underlined, and deleted text struck through):

 

The Executive Councillor is recommended to:

1. Agree the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) (Appendix A1) and Proposed Submission Policies Map (Appendix A2) for future public consultation, contingent upon the separate Development Control Order being undertaken by Anglian Water for the relocation of the Waste Water Treatment Plant being approved; 

2. Note the Draft Final Sustainability Report (Appendix B), and Habitats Regulation Assessment (Appendix C) and agree them as supporting documents to the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) that will also be subject to future public consultation; 

3. Agree the following supporting documents to future public consultation:  a. Statement of Consultation, including the Councils’ consideration of and responses to representations received to the draft North East Cambridge Area Action Plan (Regulation 18) consultation 2020 (Appendix D);  b. Duty to Cooperate Compliance Statement (Appendix E);  c. Draft Duty to Cooperate Statement of Common Ground (Appendix F);  d. Equalities Impact Assessment (Appendix G);  e. Topic papers (Appendix H). 

4. Agree the findings of the following background evidence documents prepared by the Councils that have informed the North East Cambridge Page 762 Report page no. 3 Agenda page no. Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission and are proposed to accompany future public consultation:  a. Typologies Study and Development Capacity Assessment (Appendix I1);  b. Surface Water Drainage Core Principles (Appendix I2);  c. Chronology of the feasibility investigations of redevelopment of the Cambridge Waste Water Treatment Plant (Appendix I3).

5. Note the findings of the background evidence documents that have informed the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission and are proposed to accompany the public consultation (see Background documents to this report); 

 6. Agree that any subsequent material amendments be made by the Cambridge Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport in consultation with Chair and Spokes, and by the South Cambridgeshire Lead Member for Planning, both in consultation with the JLPAG; 

7. Agree that any subsequent minor amendments and editing changes be delegated to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic in consultation with Cambridge Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport and by the South Cambridgeshire Lead Member for Planning.

1. Defer decisions on the North East Cambridge Area Action Plan: Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) and Proposed Submission Policies Map for the shortest feasible period until options of alternative mixes allowing greater on-site achievement of the Local Plan policy standard for formal open space have been considered by members.

The Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development advised the work required to consider the alternative mix of land use and the consultation process would take a further twelve-months to develop and then to engage with statutory consultees.   A delay could create a risk that the Development Consent Order Process would not proceed until the AAP had been agreed which would impact the Local Plan and AAP timetable. The current trajectory for adoption of the Local Plan was that the Plan would be more than five years old. An out of date Local Plan would mean that local polices would be given less weight for planning decisions.

The amendment was lost by 3 votes to 5 votes.

The Committee

The Committee endorsed the recommendations as set out in the Officer’s report by 5 votes to 0.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The report referred to the Authority Monitoring Report (AMR) for Greater Cambridge 2020-2021.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport.

                  i.       Agreed the Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council - Authority Monitoring Report for Greater Cambridge 2020-2021 (included as Appendix A of the Officer’s report) for publication on the Councils’ websites.

                 ii.       Delegated any further minor editing changes to the Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire District Council - Authority Monitoring Report for Greater Cambridge 2020-2021 to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, and the Chair and Spokes for the Planning Policy and Transport Scrutiny Committee, including the final designed version of Appendix 3.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Senior Policy Planner and Principal Planning Policy Officer who in response to Members’ questions said the following:

        i.         The main reason the total number of completions of affordable housing was lower than 40% was that the policy only requires 40% affordable homes on schemes of 15 dwellings or more, a lower requirement of 25% affordable homes applies to schemes of 10-14 dwellings, and there is no requirement for affordable housing on sites with 10 dwellings or less in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

      ii.         It is important to differentiate between permissions and completions when looking at the affordable housing data. A planning permission that secures 40% affordable homes may not complete 40% affordable homes each year, instead the proportion of affordable homes completed on a development will vary each year. 

     iii.         Out of the 850 completions so far at the Eddington site, 686 were affordable, therefore currently at 81% affordable homes. The policy is for 50% affordable homes on this development, and therefore this is what we would expect to see when the scheme is completed.

    iv.         The reference to life expectancy in the city was looked at in terms of general impacts of our policies and therefore is considered at district level.

      v.         The AMR currently looks at delivery of new developments in terms of new homes and new buildings, but can look to include wider information in future, such as delivery of other infrastructure like the bus route through Darwin Green. Also, in terms of transport schemes, the AMR does not provide an update on all schemes, it just highlights those where progress has been made in the monitoring year, which is why the Greater Cambridge Partnership Milton Road Scheme has not been specifically mentioned.

    vi.         With regards to the local centres with below 50% retail, the 6 centres had been referenced on p298 of the Officer’s report.

   vii.         The purpose of the AMR is to look backwards and therefore reports up to April 2021. There is also now an obligation to report on s106 outcomes each year. Neither would pick up outstanding works, but this was something that could be looked at for future reporting.

 

The Committee

The Committee unanimously endorsed the Officers recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport approved the recommendations.

 

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

Matter for Decision

At the June Planning and Transport meeting, the Executive Councillor approved the undertaking of a review in relation to the Council’s Transport Initiatives. This would include the City Council’s Taxicard Scheme, Cambridge City Bus Subsidies and Cambridge Dial-a-Ride.

 

The review was to have been undertaken working with the Council’s partners including the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) but had been completed without input from the GCP due to resource constraints.

 

The report referred to the recommendations in relation to the review.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport.

      i.         Approved the proposed changes to the Taxicard scheme for Taxicard members to be implemented from 1 April 2022.

    ii.         Agreed to stop the provision of the City Council’s subsidy for the Citi 1 Night Bus Service from 1 April 2022.

   iii.         Approved the continuation to fund Cambridge Dial-a-Ride with a Grant Agreement for the 2022/23 financial year to the value of £40k.

  iv.         Noted future joined up working with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) and the GCP regarding existing City bus subsidies linked with the Bus Service Improvement Plan and City Access projects.

    v.         Continued to approve the Head of Human Resources’ delegated authority, in liaison with the Executive Councillor for Planning and Transport, and consultation with the Chair and Spokespersons for Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee, to make any changes that may be necessary to support the transport initiatives and schemes going forward, until such time as a wider decision around the policy and strategy decisions is agreed

 

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 Human Resources and the Corporate Business & Executive Support Manager.

 

The Corporate Business & Executive Manager informed the Committee there was an error in the report at paragraph 3.2, in respect of the times of operation for the Stagecoach Citi 2 and 3 services, in so far as the times not all being shown as a 24-hour clock.  For the Citi 2, ‘1046’ should have read ‘2246’ and for the Citi 3, ‘1032’ as ‘2232’. To confirm, the Citi 3, 2240, 2310 and 2340 departures from Cherry Hinton Tesco run as commercial services.   

 

In response to comments made by the Committee, the Head of Human Resources, the Corporate Business & Executive Support Manager and Executive Councillor said the following:

      i.         In respect of Citi 2 and 3 bus services the times had not been converted to the 24-hour clock.

    ii.         As the Taxicard scheme continues a report should be brought to committee at a later date to provide an update on how the changes to the scheme had met the original aim of increasing Taxicard membership and to feedback on how the scheme was being promoted which to date had included Cambridge Matters and Open Door.

   iii.         The taxi card scheme is relevant to an individual; if there are two members of a family eligible to qualify for a Taxicard they could apply and receive vouchers in their own right.

  iv.         Would hope there would be an increase in the number of individuals using the scheme when the next report was brought to Committee.

    v.         Noted the comment that the budget for the provision of Bus Subsidies would be reduced if the recommendations were approved to stop the provision of the Citi 1 Nightbus.

  vi.         Noted the concern expressed at the equalities audit in relation to the Taxicard scheme which had looked at the scheme in general but did not address what would happen to those individuals who run out of vouchers.

 vii.         Advised that the budget for the Taxicard scheme had been underspent for many years and there was no proposal to cut the budget for this scheme; the vouchers could only be used in the full amount and therefore with the revision of different denominations of voucher value, the option to use as many vouchers per trip and the changes made to the eligibility criteria on the application form would mean greater flexibility for members. 

 

Councillor Porrer proposed and Councillor Bick seconded the following amendments to the recommendation (additional text underlined, and deleted text struck through):

 

1. Approve the proposed changes to the Taxicard scheme for Taxicard members to be implemented from 1 April 2022 – see 3.1.1.

Defer the proposed changes to the Taxicard scheme until a full report of the budgetary context of the reduced value of vouchers provided to eligible participants has been considered by councillors, along with further feedback on how those who will run out of vouchers can be supported, in particular those on lower incomes and with protected characteristics, and a revised Equalities Audit provided which fully notes the survey responses and the reduction in allowance per scheme member.

 

2. Stop the provision of the City Council’s subsidy for the Citi 1 Night Bus Service from 1 April 2022 – see 3.2.1

Councillor Bick then proposed and Councillor Porrer seconded the following amendments to the recommendation (additional text underlined, and deleted text struck through):

2(a) Review and decide the future of the subsidy for the Citi 1 Night Bus only when information on users, costs and contract can be presented for consideration;

2(b) Seek to recover the subsidy paid over the period that the service was not operated and to recommence payments as soon as Stagecoach is prepared to re-start the service. 

3. Continue to fund Cambridge Dial-a-Ride with a Grant Agreement for the 2022/23 financial year to the value of £40k - see 3.3.1.

4. Note future joined up working with Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) and the GCP regarding existing City bus subsidies linked with the Bus Service Improvement Plan and City Access projects – see 3.4.1

5. Continue to approve the Head of Human Resources’ delegated authority, in liaison with the Executive Councillor for Planning and Transport, and consultation with the Chair and Spokesperson for Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee, to make any changes that may be necessary to support the transport initiatives and schemes going forward, until such time as a wider decision around the policy and strategy decisions is agreed.

A vote on was taken on both amendments which was lost by 3 votes to 5 votes. 

The Committee

The Committee endorsed the Officers recommendations by 5 votes to 3 Votes.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

To agreed the adoption of the Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document as amended.

Matter for Decision

The report recommended that the Biodiversity Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) as amended was adopted, to be used as a material consideration in planning decisions supporting implementation of the adopted Local Plan.

 

Decision of the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport.

      i.         Considered the main issues raised in the public consultation, agreed responses to the representations received and agreed proposed changes to the SPD as set out in the Statement of Consultation (appendix 1 of the Officer’s report).

    ii.         Agreed the adoption the amended Greater Cambridge Biodiversity SPD (appendix 2 of the Officer’s report).

   iii.         Agreed to delegate to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport, the Chair and Opposition Spokes for the Planning Policy and Transport Scrutiny Committee, the authority to make any necessary editing changes to the SPD prior to publication.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

In response to comments made by the Committee, the Natural Environment Team Leader, Nature Conservation Projects Officer, Principal Planning Officer and the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development said the following:

               i.         Noted the Committee’s positive comments on the statutory 10% and the aspiration of 20% biodiversity.

             ii.         Suggested the SPD could be reviewed at the point of adoption of the new Local Plan; if additional guidance on biodiversity net gain was required at this point this would be an option to explore.

            iii.         One of the challenges writing the SPD had been the changes in national legislation and guidance as the document developed.  These changes would continue to evolve over time; therefore, it was important to note these changes and determine if reassessment would be required as and when. 

           iv.         Confirmed that when scrutinising applications against policy on both large and small sites that biodiversity was being achieved and documented.

             v.         Started to reference best practice with the appropriate links throughout the SPD, however, it was not possible to provide the whole spectrum of solutions that officers advised on individual applications. This would have also increased the length of the SPD; some feedback received during the consultation process was that the document was too lengthy.

           vi.         There was an intention to show best practice on the relevant pages of the city council website rather than in the SPD which meant these pages could be updated regularly.

          vii.         Developments that successfully met the statutory biodiversity had done so with collective conversations with officers and support of the council. As this continued it would be likely the additional ambition of biodiversity would be taken forward.

        viii.         With regard to S106 and offsetting, officers were investigating the possibility of offsite biodiversity net gain where it was not possible to meet onsite biodiversity.

           ix.         The emerging Local Plan was an opportunity to develop and assist with infrastructure contributions towards the delivery of green infrastructure and biodiversity net gain.

               i.         Noted the comment it was important to acknowledge the harm of biodiversity and habitat located on the perimeter of a development site; work should be undertaken through survey data and written into policy the protection of those areas so developers could not build on the boundaries.

             ii.         Officers were working with other local authorities to develop best practice for long term biodiversity through clear extended ownership and cohesive planning.

            iii.         Currently there was little guidance from Central Government on long term biodiversity.

           iv.         It was critical going forward that monitoring for sustainable quality biodiversity was in place; this would emerge from national legislation which the department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) were assembling.  The balance of onsite and offsite biodiversity was complex and was not without challenges.

             v.         There was best practice on biodiversity net gain (the principles could be used when looking at offsite provision) one of which was on good governance, this could be used as an interim while waiting for further Government guidance.

           vi.         There was no reason why the SPD could not be used as a guide to determine if enforcement action should be taken.

          vii.         Noted the request for a report on the progress of policies and long-term net gain term biodiversity.

 

The Committee

The Committee unanimously endorsed the Officers recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning Policy and Transport approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

To approve the award of homelessness prevention grants (HPGs) to agencies, and to approve an alternative source of funding for these grants, repurposing the former grants budget to support the new ‘streets to home’ service and enable the secure funding of existing housing advice service staff.

Matter for Decision

This report outlined grant funding to organisations providing homelessness prevention services. It provided an overview of the process, eligibility criteria and budget in Section 3 of the Officer’s report and Appendix 1 detailed the applications received with recommendations for 2022-23 awards.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.      Approved that from 2022-23 onwards, homelessness prevention grants are funded from the annual homelessness prevention grant award the Council receives from central government.

ii.    Approved the award of homelessness prevention grants to voluntary and community organisations for 2022-23, as set out in Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report.

iii.   Approved that from 2022-23 onwards the budget formerly used to fund homelessness prevention grants will instead be used to fund the new Streets-to-Home service and the additional staff roles that were created within the housing advice service in 2018 in response to the additional statutory duties enshrined in the Homelessness Reduction Act.

 

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 Housing Services Manager.

 

The Committee asked how the funding referred to in paragraph 3.9 of the officer’s report would be used.

 

The Housing Services Manager said the Central Government Homelessness Prevention Grant Funding which would not be spent on the City Council’s Local Grants to Agencies would be spent on a range of services to prevent homelessness. 

 

The Committee resolved:

 

-       unanimously to endorse recommendation 2.1.

-       unanimously to endorse recommendation 2.2 (excluding grants 3,4,13,14,15 in Appendix 1).

-       by 8 votes to 0 to endorse recommendation 2.2 in relation to grants 3 and 4

-       by 8 votes to 0 to endorse recommendation 2.2 in relation to grants 13, 14, 15.

-       unanimously to endorse recommendation 2.3.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

In a partnership arrangement with Cambridgeshire County Council, the City Council wishes to commission a single service that will assist rough sleepers to quickly move from the streets into accommodation.

 

The ‘streets-to-home’ service is expected to commence in April 2022 and will be commissioned by combining funds from the County Council’s housing-related support budget with City Council funding formerly made to enable the annual homelessness prevention grant bid round.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved the City Council financial contribution as set out in paragraph 3.6 of the Officer’s report.

    ii.         Delegated to the Head of Housing the authority to endorse the award of the contract to the winning bidder.

 

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 Housing Services Manager.

 

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

i.      Asked when the contract to the winning bidder would be announced.

ii.    Noted that there were people with complex needs who lived on the streets, but that resident’s perception was that the council weren’t doing anything to support them. Felt that residents weren’t aware of good ways to support homeless people for example through Cambridge Street Aid. 

 

The Housing Services Manager said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.      Officers expected to announce the winning contractor by the end of January 2022.  Would look into doing a press release.

ii.    Officers were looking into better ways to advise people how they could support homeless people. Would look into the number of press releases.  

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The report set out how the Council would carry out its statutory responsibilities for caravan site licensing, inspection, fit and proper person determination enforcement and fee setting.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved the adoption of the proposed Cambridge City Caravan Site Licensing & Fee Policy as attached in Appendix A to 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 Environmental Health Manager.

 

The Committee thanked Officers for the clarity of the report.

 

The Committee resolved by 8 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Regular update on the delivery of new council homes under the 500 programme, together with an update on the work being undertaken to deliver an additional 1,000 Council homes, building on the success of the current programme. This includes an Update on work toward revising the Sustainable Housing Design guide as approved by Housing Scrutiny Committee in January 2021.

Matter for Decision

This report provided an update on the housing development programme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Noted the continued progress on the delivery of the approved housing programme.

    ii.         Noted the updated 2021 Sustainable Housing Design Guide, to include the recommendations approved in January’s 2021 Housing Scrutiny Committee meeting and Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities’ National Design Standards.

 

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 Housing Development Agency.

 

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

        i.       Queried the colour of properties built as part of the regeneration programme as thought properties which were black on the outside absorbed 20% more heat than lighter coloured houses.

 

The Head of Housing Development said the following in response to Members’ questions:

        i.       Confirmed would liaise with the Tenant Representative outside of the meeting regarding the colour of properties built as part of the redevelopment programme as did not believe that any of the new council housing developments contained properties which were black.

      ii.        Confirmed that there was a requirement to build homes to M42 standard and that 5% of homes would be accessible homes.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

At Housing Scrutiny Committee on 23rd September 2021 it was noted that the programme of review of estates would be carried forward including survey work and consultation with residents to include Hanover and Princess Courts and Kingsway Flats.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Noted the progress made to date towards identifying the most favourable improvement route for the Hanover and Princess Courts and Kingsway flats and the outcome of the initial consultation exercises.

    ii.         Approved commencement of a consultation process for Hanover and Princess Court residents including redevelopment and refurbishment options.

   iii.         Approved a decant process with immediate effect in advance of a decision on the future of Hanover and Princess Courts including deviation from the Lettings Policy position that those decanting are given emergency housing status when the required vacant possession date is within 12 months.

  iv.         Delegated authority to the Head of Housing to amend the Local Lettings Plans for the Mill Road and Cromwell Road developments to allow for direct lets for residents interested in moving from Hanover and Princess Courts.

    v.         Approved with immediate effect the purchase of the leasehold interest of flats in Hanover and Princess Courts and the issue of Home Loss and Disturbance payments to qualifying Council tenants and Basic Loss and Disturbance payments to qualifying leaseholders affected by the potential redevelopment

  vi.         Approved the development of a project plan for appraisal work on Hanover and Princess Courts and a management plan for Kingsway including the development of plans for communication and engagement with residents and owners and associated parties.

 vii.         Noted the required adjustments to the HRA Business Plan, adjustments to the works budgets and recognition of the phased rent loss that would be anticipated due to vacating fats at Hanover and Princess Courts.

viii.         Approved the amendment to the Lettings Policy detailed at 6.13 and Appendix C of the officer’s report.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of the Housing Development Agency.

 

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

        i.       Asked how many units were proposed to be provided if the development went ahead. 

      ii.        Asked if the refurbishment option was chosen whether the scale of the refurbishment would require tenants to decant in any event.

    iii.        Thanked Officers for the work carried out as part of the consultation and welcomed officer’s comments about trying to maintain tenant’s community links.

    iv.       Wanted residents to be reassured that a full and thorough consultation would be undertaken.

      v.       Noted that a working group had been set up between key officers in the Housing Development Agency and the Vice Chair Tenant Representative and the Leaseholder representative and they were meeting almost fortnightly to ensure that there was the best consultation carried out.

    vi.       Asked if information about the consultation could be included in the residents ‘Open Door’ magazine. 

 

The Head of Housing Development Agency said the following in response to Members’ questions:

        i.       The options appraisal work would look at how many units could be provided on site if the development went ahead.

      ii.        A significant level of refurbishment meant it was highly likely that residents would have to move out. However, this would be looked at as part of the options appraisal work.

    iii.        Work would continue with the consultation working group to discuss next steps in the process.

    iv.       Would include information about the proposals and consultation in the ‘Open Door’ residents magazine.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

a) Approve the proposed charges for HRA housing rents and service charges.

b) Consider the revenue budget proposals.

c) Consider the capital budget proposals.

Matter for Decision

As part of the 2022/23 budget process, the range of assumptions upon which the HRA Business Plan and Medium Term Financial Strategy were based, have been reviewed in light of the latest information available, culminating in the preparation of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

 

The HRA Budget-Setting Report provides an overview of the review of the key assumptions. It sets out the key parameters for the detailed recommendations and final budget proposals and is the basis for the finalisation of the 2022/23 budgets.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved that council dwellings rents for all social rented properties be increased by inflation of 3.1%, measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) at September 2021, plus 1%, resulting in rent increases of 4.1%, with effect from 4 April 2022. This equates to an average rent increase of £4.21 per week.

    ii.         Approved that affordable rents (inclusive of service charge) are reviewed in line with rent legislation, to ensure that the rents charged are no more than 80% of market rent, with rents for existing tenants increased by no more than inflation of 3.1%, measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) at September 2021, plus 1%, resulting in rent increases of up to 4.1%. Local policy is to cap affordable rents (inclusive of all service charges) at the Local Housing Allowance level, which would usually result in rent variations in line with any changes notified to the authority in this level if these result in a lower than 4.1% increase. As the Local Housing Allowance was increased significantly in late March 2020, affordable rent increases will be capped at 4.1% from April 2022, which is still well below the 2022/23 Local Housing Allowances levels.

   iii.         Approved that rents for shared ownership properties are reviewed and amended from April 2022, in line with the specific requirements within the lease for each property.

  iv.         Approved that garage and parking space charges for 2022/23 be increased by inflation at 2% in line with the level of inflation incorporated into the HRA as part of the Medium-Term Financial Strategy process, and that charges for parking permits are reviewed, with any resulting charges summarised in Section 3 of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

    v.         Approved the proposed service charges for Housing Revenue Account services and facilities, as shown in Appendix B of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

  vi.         Approved the proposed leasehold administration charges for 2022/23, as detailed in Appendix B of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

 vii.         Approved that caretaking, building cleaning, window cleaning, estate services, grounds maintenance, temporary housing premises and utilities, sheltered scheme premises and utilities, digital television aerial, gas maintenance, door entry systems, lifts, electrical and mechanical maintenance, flat cleaning, third party services, specialist equipment and catering charges continue to be recovered at full cost, as detailed in Appendix B of the HRA Budget Setting Report, recognising that local authorities should endeavour to limit increases to inflation as measured by CPI at September 2021 (3.1%) plus 1%, wherever possible.

viii.         Approved the updated HRA Rent Setting Policy, included at Appendix M to the HRA Budget Setting Report.

  ix.         Approved with any amendments, the Revised Budget identified in Section 4 and Appendix D (1) of the HRA Budget Setting Report, which reflects a net reduction in the use of HRA reserves for 2021/22 of £262,870.

    x.         Approved with any amendments, any Non-Cash Limit items identified in Section 4 of the HRA Budget Setting Report or shown in Appendix D (2) of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

  xi.         Approved with any amendments, any Savings, Increased Income, Unavoidable Revenue Bids, Reduced Income Proposals and Bids, as shown in Appendix D (2) of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

 xii.         Approved the resulting Housing Revenue Account revenue budget as summarised in the Housing Revenue Account Summary Forecast 2021/22 to 2026/27 shown in Appendix J of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

 

The Executive Councillor recommended to Council to:

xiii.         Approve the revised need to borrow over the 30-year life of the business plan, with the first instance of this anticipated to be in 2022/23, to sustain the proposed level of investment, which includes earmarking funding for delivery of a net 1,000 new homes over a 10-year timeframe.

xiv.         Recognise that the constitution delegates Treasury Management to the Head of Finance (Part 3, para 5.11), with Part 4F, C16 stating: ‘All executive decisions on borrowing, investment or financing shall be delegated to the Head of Finance, who is required to act in accordance with CIPFA’s Code of Practice for Treasury Management in Local Authorities’.

xv.         Recognise that any decision to borrow further will impact the authority’s ability to set-aside resource to redeem 25% of the value of the housing debt by the point at which the loan portfolio matures, with the approach to this to be reviewed before further borrowing commences.

xvi.         Approve capital bids, as detailed in Appendix D (3 ) and Appendix E of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

xvii.         Approve the latest Decent Homes and Other HRA Stock Investment Programme to include reduced expenditure for wall structure and fire safety works and re-phasing of other elements of the programme into later years, as detailed in Appendix E of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

xviii.         Approve the latest budget sums, profiling and associated financing for all new build schemes, including revised scheme budgets for Colville III, Fen Road, Ditton Fields, Aragon Close, Sackville Close and Borrowdale based upon the latest cost information from the Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) and a reduction in unit numbers at Aylesborough Close, as detailed in Appendices E and H, and summarised in Appendix K, of the HRA Budget Setting Report.

xix.         Approve the allocation of funds from the budget earmarked for the delivery of 1,000 net new homes to allow buy back of leasehold dwellings and relocation of tenants from Princess and Hanover Court over the next two years, in advance of a final recommendation for the future of the estate which will be presented once the options appraisal and consultation work has been concluded.

xx.         Approve the revised Housing Capital Investment Plan as shown in Appendix K of the HRA Budget-Setting Report.

xxi.         Approve the inclusion of Disabled Facilities Grant expenditure and associated grant income from 2022/23 onwards, based upon 2021/22 net grant received, with delegation to the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to approve an in year increase or decrease in the budget for disabled facilities grants in any year, in direct relation to any increase or decrease in the capital grant funding for this purpose, as received from the County Council through the Better Care Fund.

xxii.         Approve delegation to the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to determine the most appropriate use of any additional Disabled Facilities Grant funding, for the wider benefit of the Shared Home Improvement Agency.

xxiii.         Approve delegation to the Strategic Director to review and amend the level of fees charged by the Shared Home Improvement Agency for disabled facilities grants and repair assistance grants, in line with any decisions made by the Shared Home Improvement Agency Board.

xxiv.         Approve delegation to the Strategic Director to review, agree and enter into a revised Shared Home Improvement Agency Shared Service Agreement, in line with recommendations made by the Shared Home Improvement Agency Board.

xxv.         Approve delegation to the Strategic Director, in consultation with the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to draw down resource from the ear-marked reserves for potential debt redemption or re-investment, for the purpose of open market land or property acquisition or new build housing development, should the need arise, in order to meet deadlines for the use of retained right to buy receipts or to facilitate future site redevelopment.

xxvi.         Approve delegation to the Head of Finance, as Section 151 Officer, to make any necessary technical amendments to detailed budgets in respect of recharges between the General Fund and the HRA, with any change in impact for the HRA to be incorporated as part of the HRA Medium Term Financial Strategy in September 2022.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

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

 

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

i.      Noted the budget had been drawn up in challenging times. The work of the HRA was dependent on rental income, and that rents were proposed to be increased. Tenants had benefitted from a reduction in rents however this had put improvement works, which were dependent on rental income behind. The HRA could not support net zero carbon initiatives across the whole of the housing stock. Central government needed to provide resources to do this. 96% of the housing stock were at decent homes standard and the council was working towards 100% of the stock being decent homes standard.

ii.    Asked if rents had to increase to off-set shortfalls in rental income from the Mill Road and Cromwell Road developments.

iii.   Noted inflation assumptions had been built into the HRA as best as officers could from the autumn’s numbers however there had been a marked increase. Asked what assurance could be given to manage inflation increases.

iv.  Felt the Council was in a holding pattern as new housing developments were dependent upon receipt of Homes England funding. 

v.    The isolation of elderly residents was a problem and the council could not wait for the internal scoping work study (as set out in the Labour amendment to the fourth bullet point in recommendation 1.3 on page 2-3 of the Liberal Democrat Amendment document) to be undertaken.

vi.  Noted reference to a decarbonisation fund but this was not set out in any document.

vii. Asked how much CO2 the council’s housing stock was putting into the atmosphere.

 

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

        i.       Rent increases were not linked in any way to delays in rental income from the Mill Road and Cromwell Road development. However if rents were not increased, then savings would have to be made elsewhere and difficult decisions would need to be taken about where to reduce expenditure. Rent levels had always been set in accordance with government guidelines. Rent increases meant the council could continue to deliver a programme of investment and would for example cover the retrofit pilot project.

    ii.         Recognised that inflation was proving a challenge. Had built an additional 1.7% inflation in as part of the budget process, over and above the estimate of 2% rise in inflation in the Housing Revenue Account Medium Term Financial Strategy. These funds would be held centrally and allocated to areas as required to fulfil contractual commitments. This would be reviewed again as part of the Medium-Term Financial Strategy.

 

Councillor Dalzell introduced the Liberal Democrat Amendment to the 2022/23 Housing Revenue Budget.

 

Councillor Robertson proposed an amendment to the fourth bullet point in recommendation 1.3 on page 2-3 of the Liberal Democrat Amendment document. (deleted text struckthrough, additional text underlined.)

 

A proposal for internal scoping work, including the Independent Living Service and Communities Service, alongside the assessment of external provision, to inform an analysis of the services provided to older residents (not just council tenants) experiencing isolation and to assess community needs. This analysis may include recommending a future revenue bid for to include a revenue bid of £21,580 in 2022/23 and £43,160 in 2023/24 to fund an 18-month fixed term  a Community Inclusion Officer from October 2022. They would will work across the sheltered housing portfolio and with older tenants in our general needs housing, to support residents, to improve connectivity between sheltered schemes and other residents and to reduce loneliness and social isolation. The new post would will supplement the existing Independent Living Service.

 

The amendment was approved by 9 votes in favour, 1 against and 4 abstentions.

 

The Chair decided that the recommendations highlighted in the Liberal Democrat Group (LD) amendment (as amended) should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

The following vote was chaired by Councillor Sheil.

 

LD1.3(i). A proposal to specifically earmark any net underspend in revenue repair budgets, capital decent homes budgets and capital other spend on own stock budgets from the financial year 2021/22 onwards, after allowing for any requested carry forwards, with the resource set-aside for investment in improving the energy efficiency of our existing housing stock. Any resulting resource will be incorporated into delivery plans as soon as is practical after being ear-marked, to ensure that any available funding is directed into helping to meet net zero carbon targets across the housing portfolio. Over the last 5 years, this would have given rise to an ear-marked fund of in excess of £3.5 million.

 

The amendment was lost by 3 votes in favour to 6 against.

 

The following vote was chaired by Councillor Sheil.

 

LD1.3(ii). A proposal that if a Social Housing De-Carbonisation Fund (SHDF) Wave 1 grant bid for approximately £783,000 is successful, that delegated authority be given to the Head of Finance to both recognise the grant income in 2022/23 and to increase the energy investment budget by the same sum to allow additional properties to receive the much-needed investment in 2022/23, or at the earliest delivery opportunity.

 

The amendment was lost by 3 votes in favour to 6 against.

 

The following vote was chaired by Diana Minns.

 

LD1.3(iii). A proposal to include a revenue bid of £12,000 in 2022/23 to employ resource to undertake a project to allow the estimated carbon footprint of the housing stock to be measured and to put in place a robust structure to facilitate reporting the carbon impact of any future investment proposals. This will provide an estimated baseline and will enable improved evaluation of future investment proposals.

 

The amendment was lost by 3 votes in favour to 8 against with 1 abstention..

 

 The following vote was chaired by Diana Minns.

 

LG1.3(iv). A proposal for internal scoping work, including the Independent Living Service and Communities Service, alongside the assessment of external provision, to inform an analysis of the services provided to older residents (not just council tenants) experiencing isolation and to assess community needs. This analysis may include recommending a future revenue bid for a Community Inclusion Officer. They would work across the sheltered housing portfolio and with older tenants in our general needs housing, to support residents, to improve connectivity between sheltered schemes and other residents and to reduce loneliness and social isolation. The new post would supplement the existing Independent Living Service.

 

The amendment was carried by 9 votes in favour to 1 against with 4 abstentions.

 

Councillor Bennett introduced the Green and Independent Group Amendment to the 2022/23 Housing Revenue Budget.

 

Councillor Robertson proposed an amendment to the Green and Independent Group Amendment proposed third bullet point in recommendation 1.3 on page 3 of the Green and Independent Amendment document. (deleted text struckthrough, additional text underlined.)

 

A proposal to request officers to include in the Transformation Programme some workshops of councillors and stakeholders, such as tenant and leaseholder representatives, set up a small volunteer cross party working group to work on a short, focussed overview of the HRA Medium Term Financial Strategy and Budget Setting Reports and the General Fund Medium Term Financial Strategy and Budget Setting Reports, which could summarise and communicate information more effectively such as by:

Popular ways to do this include:

·               Use of key questions

·               Graphical presentation

·               Key performance indicators

·               Benchmarking

 

This would facilitate more effective scrutiny by all councillors and clearer communication to city residents.

 

A cost figure is not provided for this recommendation because the HRA’s accounting function already produces a very full range of high quality key performance indicator reports and benchmarking. The proposed new overview report would be is an introductory guided tour that assists users to engage with the main report and put it in context.

 

Councillor Bennett accepted Councillor Robertson’s amendment to the Green and Independent Group recommendation 1.3(iii) and agreed to withdraw the Green and Independent Group recommendation 1.3(iv) following a commitment from the Executive Councillor to provide the information requested in recommendation 1.3(iv) as far as it was possible within existing resources.

 

The Chair decided that the recommendations highlighted in the Green and Independent Group (GI) amendment (as amended) should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

The following vote was chaired by Diana Minns.

 

GI1.3(i). A proposal to include a revenue bid of £40,000 to fund a project to explore alternative housing delivery options, with a focus on the delivery of smaller homes, such as:

 

POD homes for retention in the HRA and the potential for conversion of existing unused office and retail space into residential accommodation: and

 

Delivery models that include smaller self-contained accommodation on co-living principles to provide safe, affordable, sociable and sustainable living space.

 

This could include shared communal facilities such as laundry rooms, guest rooms, co working space and social meeting space which could also be available to the wider community.

 

The project has been conceived with the particular needs of young key workers and care leavers in mind but could be adapted to suit more diverse groups of residents.

 

The project will cover market research, feasibility work, site identification, a review of vacant office and retail space in the city and liaison with planning.

 

The amendment was lost by 2 votes in favour to 10 against and 2 abstentions.

 

Recommendation GI1.3(ii) was contingent on recommendation GI1.3(i) as this amendment was lost recommendation GI1.3(ii) fell.

 

The following vote was chaired by Diana Minns.

 

GI1.3(iii). A proposal to request officers to include in the Transformation Programme some workshops of councillors and stakeholders, such as tenant and leaseholder representatives, to work on a short, focussed overview of the HRA Medium Term Financial Strategy and Budget Setting Reports and the General Fund Medium Term Financial Strategy and Budget Setting Reports, which could summarise and communicate information more effectively such as by:

•        Use of key questions

•        Graphical presentation

•        Key performance indicators

•        Benchmarking

 

This would facilitate more effective scrutiny by all councillors and clearer communication to city residents.

 

A cost figure is not provided for this recommendation because the HRA’s accounting function already produces a very full range of high quality key performance indicator reports and benchmarking. The proposed new overview report would be an introductory guided tour that assists users to engage with the main report and put it in context.

 

The amendment was carried by 13 votes in favour to 0 against and 1 abstentions.

 

The following vote was chaired by Diana Minns.

 

The Committee resolved by 12 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations  a - l of the budget proposal including the Liberal Democrat Group recommendation (as amended) 1.4(iv) and the Green and Independent Group recommendation (as amended) 1.3(iii).

 

The following vote was chaired by Councillor Sheil.

 

The Committee resolved by 7 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations  m – z of the budget proposal.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

Matter for Decision

The Council commissioned a report in 2021 to establish a high-level cost estimate of how the Council could retrofit existing Council properties to be net zero carbon. This report sought approval for a pilot project to retrofit up to fifty Council properties to establish the actual cost and methodology of achieving net zero carbon in existing Council properties.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved the issue of tenders and authorised the Director of Neighbourhoods and Communities to award a contract(s) to a contractor(s) to deliver energy efficiency works and works to reduce carbon emissions from Council housing in 22/23 and 23/24, with an option to extend for one or more periods up to a maximum of two years.

 

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 Asset Manager.

 

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

i.      Asked what the implications of the report would be for leaseholders.

ii.    Pleased to note that 50 properties were going to be improved however noted that there was over 1000 council properties which needed to be improved as well as other stock in Cambridge.

iii.   Suggested the use of the Open Door residents’ magazine, Cambridge Matters magazine and voluntary organisations such as Cambridge Carbon Footprint to encourage other people in the city to consider how they could retrofit their properties. 

iv.  Asked what could be done to assist households on low incomes to retrofit their properties.

v.    Asked if there was any obligation to take on local contractors as part of the procurement process to retain knowledge locally.

vi.  Noted that access to properties would be the biggest challenge with this project. Noted that officers were planning a pilot in a particular area but asked if officers may take up other opportunities if they arose for example retrofitting an empty property.  

 

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

      i.         Pilot studies would be undertaken looking at different archetypes as well as low rise one bed flats. It was proposed in the first instance to run a pilot with a council owned block of flats. Officers would work through any implications for a mixed tenure block of flats.

    ii.         Officers would take advantage of any government funding to assist with retrofitting, but this was likely to only be available for council properties and not leasehold properties.

   iii.         Officers were working with the Environmental Health Team to investigate whether grants could be offered to the private housing sector. 

  iv.         Officers would consider local contractors as a criterion within the procurement process, but it depended on the length of the contract and if it was a standard procurement or a call-off from a framework procurement.

    v.         Officers hoped that residents in the chosen area would be interested to take part in the pilot scheme but if they weren’t then officers would need to re-consider their approach.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update on the compliance-related activities delivered within the Estates and Facilities Team, including a summary on gas servicing, electrical testing and fire safety work.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Noted the Council’s current position regarding Compliance, and the progress of ongoing associated works.

 

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 Interim Regeneration Project Manager (previously the Interim Risk and Compliance Manager, which was why he presented the report). The compliance data appendix was shared via Microsoft Teams as part of the officer presentation. 

 

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

      i.         Noted that access had been refused to two flats and that officers would need to use legal powers to gain access to make the properties safe. 

 

The Interim Regeneration Officer confirmed that a legal process would be undertaken to gain access to the two flats who had refused access to ensure their properties were safe.  

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

Matter for Decision:	The purpose of this decision is to confirm and approve the Council’s representation to the Public Inquiry on the application by Network Rail made under the Transport and Works Act 1992 for the Cambridge South Infrastructure Enhancements scheme (including the new Cambridge South Station) submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport.   The matter for decision is to confirm the Council’s Statement of Case and to approve the Proof of Evidence reports prepared by three witnesses to appear at the Public Inquiry on behalf of the Council (see documents attached).  The decision is also to give delegated authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development to agree a Statement of Common Ground and to agree any planning conditions to be attached to the development with the applicant before or during the course of the Public Inquiry.   The Statement of Case presents the full case for the Council building on the issues raised in the Council’s initial response to the public consultation, and confirming the Council’s position as supporting the scheme in principle, but objecting to matters relating to the use of Hobson’s Park and the proposed exchange land, the impact on trees, the proposals for biodiversity net gain, and other matters requiring submission of further information.   The Proof of Evidence reports have been prepared by the Council’s witnesses and expand on the objections raised in the Council’s Statement of Case which have not been resolved through discussions with Network Rail.  The Statement of Common Ground is envisaged to agree the policy context, the site description and draft planning conditions that have been discussed with officers, and other matters as appropriate.
Why the decision had to be made (and any alternative options):	The submission of Proof of Evidence documents is required by 7 January and the Statement of Common Ground should be agreed asap and preferably before the Public Inquiry opens on 1 February.     All documents referenced can be viewed at the link below:  https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/ecCatDisplay.aspx?sch=doc&cat=13492
The Executive Councillor’s decision(s):	To confirm and approve the following documents, namely: the Statement of Case representing the City Council’s representations to the Public Inquiry examination of the above proposal and the Proofs of Evidence of Charlotte Burton, Alistair Wilson and Guy Belcher with delegated authority to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development to secure any non-substantive amendments to the Proofs of Evidence which are considered to be appropriate and necessary.   To delegate to the Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development: (i) authority to agree the Council’s case with respect to the proposals at the forthcoming examination and to facilitate the delivery of that case, including but not limited to agreeing and settling the Statement of Common Ground; (ii) settle the  draft planning conditions to be included in the planning permission; (iii) negotiate and settle the heads of terms for any necessary planning obligations under s106 (or any modification under s106A in respect of any existing planning obligation) of  the Town and Country Planning Act 1990; and (iv) to complete any deed settled under 2(iii).
Reasons for the decision:	To ensure that Cambridge City Council’s interests are effectively represented at the Examination
Scrutiny consideration:	The Chair and Spokespersons of Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee and the Chair and Spokespersons of the Environment and Community Scrutiny Committee were consulted on this matter.
Report:	Statement of Case and Proof of Evidence reports (3).
Conflicts of interest:	None known.
Comments:	Comments were received from Councillor Bick Lib Dem Spokes who had requested the points below were considered.   ·       We feel that the BNG of 10% is really insufficient in this situation especially because some of what is proposed is not on/near site and experienceable by those using the area and other is proposed as via green roofing/walls which few believe is durable over time. Can the submissions be flexed to incorporate this aspiration? ·       There is dissatisfaction with the intended layout of the station itself whereby taxi ranking and car drop-off is positioned far closer to the terminal building and more obviously than bus stops and bike parking. We think it is inevitable that the station will not only be used for the CBC as a destination, but by others who live in or want to access a much wider area of the city and beyond. For this reason, it does not seem so obvious that the design should assume the hierarchy that it does. Can the council’s objection be broadened to include this point? ·       Given the desire to constrain incremental vehicle space at the station, can a marker be put down in these representations which might facilitate a requirement for developer contributions to resident parking schemes in surrounding areas?    The Joint Director of Planning and Economic Development responded direct to Councillor Bick.   No further comments were made.