Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register
The Community Alarms Service is currently undergoing a review which will provide recommendations on its future direction. A decision will be required on which recommendation is taken forward.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 28/10/2022
Effective from: 21/06/2022
Decision:
This item was
chaired by Councillor Thittala Varkey (Chair)
Matter for
Decision
Cambridge City Council’s
Community Alarms service has been in operation in the City
for over 20 years and currently serves around 440 customers. It has built a
solid reputation and provided a valuable service over this time. However, for
the last 5 years the service has been experiencing a decline in customer
numbers and has, therefore, not achieved its income targets, resulting in the
service no longer recovering its full cost inclusive of all overheads.
A review of the
options for the service has been conducted and the report recommends the
termination of the service by the City Council and the transfer of customers to
the equivalent service by Cambridgeshire County Council.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Agreed the termination of the Community Alarm Service.
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 Service Manager
(Supported Housing).
The Housing Services Manager (Supported Housing) said the following in
response to Members’ questions:
i.
Advised
that the officer whose job was affected by the proposals had been involved with
the drafting of the report and developing the recommendation.
ii.
Noted
in relation to concerns expressed regarding paragraph 1.3 of the officer’s
report that discussions which had taken place with the County Council in 2019
were before the County Council had set up their own independent service.
iii.
Agreed
to share information regarding pricing with members and would report back on
discussions with the County Council.
The Committee unanimously resolved 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.
Lead officer: Laura Adcock
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 report will also update the Committee on ongoing consultation work and resident engagement.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 28/10/2022
Effective from: 21/06/2022
Decision:
This item was
chaired by Councillor Thittala Varkey (Chair)
Matter for
Decision
The 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 forthcoming work on
consultation with residents.
iii.
Agreed the adoption of a blended
rent policy (to include more social rent but some higher rents at 80% of median
market rents inclusive of Service Charge) across the new 1,000 homes programme,
as required, when delivering homes with grant above the minimum planning
requirement of 40% of units on any site.
iv.
Delegated authority to the Strategic
Director to update the HRA Rent Setting Policy in accordance with
recommendation iii above.
v.
Approved the start on site of
currently approved schemes that have planning permission at risk in relation to
grant, to mitigate the risk of build cost increase.
vi.
Approved the rent level changes to
the specific schemes outlined in this report, including the addition of 45
homes at L2, with 30 homes to be let at Social Rent and 45 homes to be let at
80% of market rent.
vii.
Approved a budget of £11,520,000.00
for the purchase as a package deal of the private sale units at L2 Orchard Park
into the Council's HRA stock, to be let at 80% of median market rent.
viii.
Approved changes to the Budgets for
Fen Road, Ditton Walk and Borrowdale as outlined in part 8.5.3, with the
revised budgets to be incorporated as part of the HRA MTFS in September 2022.
ix.
Authorised the Section 151 Officer
to enter into a Grant Agreement with Homes England for the 21-26 Homes England
Affordable Homes Programme for Continuous Market Engagement.
x.
Approved the principle that units to
be let at 80% of market rent be targeted at key workers OR the intermediate
rental market, (ie those who are assessed as being on
incomes sufficient to be able to afford 80% of market rent),
and governed by local lettings plans.
xi.
Approved that as part of our Housing
Strategy development work the Head of Housing has delegated authority to agree
(subject to consultation with the Executive Councillor) a definition of key
worker.
xii.
Agreed that the Council works with
South Cambridgeshire DC to try and jointly agree the definition of key worker.
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. An updated table to that detailed in paragraph 8.2.4 of the report had
been circulated to members at the meeting, a copy was also published on the
meeting webpage after the meeting.
The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:
i.
Welcomed a ‘key worker’ definition in relation to
housing policies.
ii.
Expressed disappointment with a loose commitment
regarding passivhaus development.
The Executive Councillor welcomed homes for key workers.
The Head of Housing said that City Council Officers would work with
colleagues from South Cambridgeshire District Council to try and agree a
definition of ‘key worker’.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: Claire Flowers
This report outlines a proposed housing redevelopment scheme to be delivered through the Housing Development Agency at Fanshawe Road, Coleridge Ward. This report seeks approval by the Executive Councillor for the proposed development and associated budget.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 28/10/2022
Effective from: 21/06/2022
Decision:
This item was
chaired by Councillor Thittala Varkey (Chair)
Matter for
Decision
The report sought budget
and approval to proceed with the redevelopment of Fanshawe Road flats, adjacent
houses, and garages to provide 93 new highly sustainable, affordable homes on
the site, with enhanced open space, as well as improvements to the community
pavilion on neighbouring Coleridge recreation ground.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Approved that the scheme be brought forward and included in
the Housing Capital Programme, with an indicative capital budget of
£27,937,291.53 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 would be drawn down
from the sum already ear-marked and approved for investment in new homes.
ii.
Authorised the Strategic 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
the officer’s report.
iii.
Authorised the Strategic Director in consultation with the
Executive Councillor for Housing to adopt option b; to deliver a minimum of 44
(approx. 47%) affordable homes for Council rent and the balance as market homes
for private sale, should grant not be available once the scheme is at a
deliverable point, subject to continued financial viability.
iv.
Approved that delegated authority be given to the Executive
Councillor for Housing in conjunction with the Strategic Director to enable the
site to be developed through Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP) subject to
a value for money assessment to be carried out on behalf of the Council.
v.
Delegated authority to the Strategic Director to commence
Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) proceedings on leasehold properties to be
demolished to enable the development, should these be required.
vi.
Delegated authority to the Strategic Director to serve
initial Demolition Notices under the Housing Act 1985.
vii.
Delegated Authority to the Head of Housing to amend the local
lettings plan for Cromwell Road to allow for the proposed decant from Fanshawe
Road to be accommodated.
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.
The Senior Development Manager, Director of Enterprise and Sustainable
Development and Head of the Housing Development Agency said the following in
response to Members’ questions:
i.
If
the redevelopment went ahead residents would be offered alternative housing at
the Cromwell Road development but acknowledged that this may not be appropriate
for everyone and that there was also alternative housing stock elsewhere in the
ward which could be explored. Pre-application advice had been sought from the
Planning Department some homes would be 2 storeys others estimate 3-4 storeys
in the middle of the development.
ii.
All
properties would need to be compliant with M42 standards and 5% of the properties
(approximately 4-5 properties) would need to be fully adapted for wheelchair
users. The ability to deliver passivhaus properties
had been explored however the orientation of properties was crucial as they
would need to be south facing and the early indication of the development
layout was that the properties would be east/west facing. The scheme would
include Passivhaus principles. Acknowledged that
there would be a trade-off between competing interests. The important factor is
the output achieved in terms of carbon emissions, fuel bills for residents and
low maintenance costs and not just the passivhaus
badge. The Council is involved with including passivhaus
pilots with learning to be fed back.
iii.
The
amount of bike storage proposed would accommodate the number of
bedrooms/occupants who would be on the site.
iv.
Officers
regularly checked the housing register to see how many people needed a fully
accessible home.
v.
Advised
that the council sought to build mixed and balanced communities when sites were
redeveloped. The inclusion of market
homes within a development meant that more affordable housing could be built.
The council had to be careful when selling properties not to act or apply a
policy which was discriminatory.
The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Lead officer: Claire Flowers
To consider the interim review of the Council's Housing First programme.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 28/10/2022
Effective from: 21/06/2022
Decision:
This item was
chaired by Councillor Thittala Varkey (Chair)
Matter for
Decision
Housing First is an approach
to helping rough sleepers to leave the streets which differs from other,
longer-established approaches in a number of respects.
Cambridge City Council, in
partnership with the County Council, agreed to set up and jointly fund a
Housing First pilot in the city. The pilot would be assessed in two stages: an
interim report carried out at a mid-point in the scheme and a later independent
report once the scheme had been running for a sufficient length of time to
allow a full appraisal. This is the mid-point report.
Decision
of Executive Councillor for Housing
i.
Noted the report and the interim findings and noted the
recommendations for further examination, the most important of which were set
out paragraph 3.4 of the officer 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 Housing Services Manager (Housing Advice).
The Housing Services Manager (Housing Advice) said the following in
response to Members’ questions:
i.
Any
decision to bring the Housing First Service in-house would need to consider
several variables including consultation with the County Council (as a partner
in the project with the City Council) and Housing First employees. Commented
that if the service was brought in house this could facilitate better
integration with other services for rough sleepers.
ii.
The
comments made by support workers within the report would be a consideration in
the future review of the service. Noted that there needed to be better
integration of the Housing First service within the broad spectrum of housing
services for rough sleepers. There needed to be a balance between the needs of
individuals and other people who may be vulnerable (neighbours / tenants etc).
iii.
Stated
that the County Council would always be involved as a partner with the Housing
First project, the question which was raised in the report was whether Housing
First would sit better within the City Council in terms of this being the best
fit for Cambridge.
iv.
Noted
concerns raised about Housing First 2 and the good neighbour role but felt
there was still not enough information about this at the moment to draw
conclusions as there were currently only two.
v.
Confirmed
that there would be a review of the modular homes project but there was
insufficient information at the moment to do a like for like comparison to
Housing First.
vi.
Six
modular home units at Newmarket Road were funded completely independently of the
council. Officers were currently in
discussions about funding for further units. Housing First was a good fit for
some people but was not appropriate for everyone. Needed to get more Housing
Association involvement in the project.
vii.There were a number of
considerations / eligibility criteria taken into account
as to whether Housing First was appropriate for a particular individual.
Housing First may be appropriate where other housing options had failed.
viii.
Acknowledged
that the case studies in the report were from males but female clients did not
come forward to take part.
The Committee unanimously resolved to endorse the recommendations.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations.
Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any
Dispensations Granted)
No conflicts of interest
were declared by the Executive Councillor.
Lead officer: James McWilliams
Consider and approve the outturn position for the HRA for 2021/22, to include approval of final revenue carry forwards and housing capital re-phasing.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 28/10/2022
Effective from: 21/06/2022
Decision:
Recommendation
i was chaired by Diana Minns (Vice Chair) and recommendation ii was chaired by
Councillor Thittala Varkey.
Matter
for Decision
The report presented for the Housing
Revenue Account (HRA)
-
A summary of actual income and expenditure compared to the final
budget for 2021/22 (outturn position).
-
Revenue and capital budget variances with explanations
-
Specific requests to carry forward funding available from both
revenue and capital budget underspends into 2022/23
-
A summary of housing debt which was written off during 2021/22.
Decision of Executive
Councillor for Housing
i.
Approved carry forward requests totalling £12,561,760 in revenue
funding from 2021/22 into 2022/23 as detailed in appendix C of the officer’s
report.
ii.
Recommends to Council to approve carry forward requests of
£22,055,000 in HRA and General Fund Housing capital budgets and associated
resources from 2021/22 into 2022/23 and beyond to fund re-phased net capital
spending, as detailed in appendix D of the officer’s report and the associated
notes to the appendix.
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 Assistant Head of Finance and Business Manager and Head
of Maintenance and Assets said the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
Carry forward requests detailed in appendix C of the officer
report, had been submitted to ensure there was financial resource to enable
required cyclical maintenance works to be carried out.
ii.
Officers were exploring a number of different ways to improve
access to council properties so that essential maintenance works and checks
could be carried out. This included offering later appointment times. Also
confirmed that the Responsive Repair Team would always make appointments with
tenants and confirm an appointment by letter; officers would not attend a
property without prior notice / appointment. Tenants would be contacted three
times before the property would be classified as a ‘no access’. Also noted (as
per agenda item 22/27/HSC) that officers were exploring aligning gas /
electrical safety checks to try and ensure all necessary safety checks could be
done in one visit.
iii.
Noted that tenants were within their rights to refuse to have
works done to their property provided that there was no detriment to the
property or health and safety risk.
iv.
Contractors were also being asked to explain whether a ‘no access’
was due to a tenant refusing works or if it was due to no response from the
tenant.
v.
Noted comments about better and realistic communication with
tenants if there were delays in carrying out maintenance works. Would speak
with Tenant Representatives outside of the meeting about their ideas for better
communication what more could be done.
vi.
Confirmed that the profiling of spend would be revisited as part
of the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) in September, so the position
would be reviewed at that point to see what progress had been made and if there
was any residual impact of the challenges over the last two years that needed
to be adjusted for.
vii.Confirmed
that the average time period to turn over a void property was 6 weeks. Noted
that there were a significant number of void properties which were being
returned back to the Council in poor condition which increased the period of
time it took to bring them back into use. There were a variety of reasons why a
property was being returned in a poor condition this included long standing
tenants who had declined planned maintenance works and also a few tenants who
had caused damage to properties. Different teams within the Housing Department
were working together to share information on property condition when visits were
made to properties.
viii.
Confirmed that the fire door contract was terminated due to poor
performance by the contractor. The Council had since reprocured the contact and
a new contractor was now in place.
ix.
The term ‘debt reinstated’ meant that a debt which had previously
been written off could be reinstated if a person re-presented themselves to the
city council for housing. Some debts were ‘statute barred’, which meant the
council were unable to pursue the debt after a 6 year period with no
interaction had passed. Some debts were
written off due to ‘special circumstances’ this could include mental health
concerns or if someone had been subject to domestic violence.
x.
Noted that the Decent Homes Budget was being carried into 2023/24
but would still be subject to labour and materials availability.
The Committee resolved by 12 votes to 0 to endorse the
recommendation i.
The Committee resolved by 6 votes to 0 to endorse the
recommendation ii.
The Executive Councillor
approved the recommendations i and ii.
Lead officer: Julia Hovells
None - This report is for information and not for decision.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 28/10/2022
Effective from: 21/06/2022
Decision:
This item was
chaired by Diana Minns (Vice Chair)
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 current position of the Council 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 Property Compliance and Risk Manager.
The Property Compliance and Risk Manager and the Head of Housing Maintenance
and Assets said the following in response to Members’ questions:
i.
Cadent are the supplier for the gas assets (meters)
at Kingsway, Princess and Hanover Courts. Inspections had been carried out
where meters had not yet been removed.
ii.
Electrical testing should be carried out every 5
years. Thought there would be an 18-month time lag to be up to date with
testing due to the pandemic and delays experienced in gaining access to
properties to be able to carry out testing / inspections. There were a number
of work streams which would feed into this report for example kitchen upgrades
and wholescale electrical improvements. Confirmed that officers were still
seeking to ensure that gas and electrical testing was done at the same time as
gas checks were currently at 100% compliance, whereas electrical testing had a
slightly lower compliance rate. Also confirmed that the letter process for
electrical checks would be changed to be more in line with gas letters.
iii.
The compliance rate for the electrical testing 10-year
programme stood at over 85% as access to undertake checks had been difficult as
a result of the pandemic.
The Committee unanimously resolved 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.
Lead officer: Renier Barnard
Approve the issue of tenders and authorise the Strategic Director to award a contract(s) to a contractor(s) to deliver energy efficiency and associated works Council housing in 22/23 and 23/24, with an option to extend for one or more periods up to a maximum extension of two years.
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness
Decision published: 28/10/2022
Effective from: 21/06/2022
Decision:
This item was
chaired by Diana Minns (Vice Chair)
Matter for
Decision
As part of a programme of
energy efficiency improvements to the Council's existing housing stock it was
planned to procure contractor(s) to install various measures including external
wall insulation, cavity wall insulation, ventilation upgrades and solar PV
panels to Council properties in various locations.
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 and associated works to Council housing from 2022
-2024, 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 Corporate Energy Manager.
The Corporate Energy Manager said the following in response to Members’
questions:
i.
External
wall insulation had been installed on 150 properties in 2020/21 and it was
hoped that it would be installed in 80-90 properties this year.
ii.
The
contract would be awarded following a formal procurement process and bidders
would be assessed against certain criteria including value for money. There was
an option included in the recommendation for the contract to be extended for up
to 2 years subject to satisfactory performance by the contractor.
iii.
Noted
that some of the council housing stock did have ‘E’ energy ratings but these
were being reviewed and prioritised for retrofit works where possible.
iv.Noted that retrofit
improvements to properties could include solar panels, new windows / doors and
insulation.
v.
New
energy efficient improvements would be considered for example underfloor
insulation and air source heat pumps had been installed in a couple of council
owned properties.
vi.Noted that delays in
the implementation of the MRI Asset Management ICT system was due to a national
issue.
vii.
Council
Tenants could contact the Council to check if their property had loft
insulation. Whether a property had loft insulation would be checked when the
housing stock condition survey was carried out.
viii.
The
Council is planning to submit a bid to the ‘Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund
wave 2’ later this year which if successful would be used to undertake additional
improvements in terms of energy efficiency of council homes.
The Committee unanimously resolved 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.
Lead officer: Will Barfield