A Cambridge City Council website

Cambridge City Council

Council and democracy

Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register

Decisions

Earlier - Later

Decisions published

24/09/2020 - Estates & Facilities Service Review and Compliance Update ref: 5161    Recommendations Approved

For information – not for decision.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness

Decision published: 02/12/2020

Effective from: 24/09/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update on the Estates & Facilities Service Review and information on compliance related work within the service, including a summary on gas servicing, electrical testing, recent audit actions and fire safety.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Noted the progress of the service review and compliance related work detailed within 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 Housing Maintenance and Assets

 

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

      i.         Noted the importance of the programme in relation to fire door installation and noted that Housing Associations were also doing electrical testing, so everyone was in the same position regarding tenant works following the covid-19 lockdown.

    ii.         Noted that some leaseholders had replaced their front doors themselves which may have been compliant with fire regulations at the time they were installed and queried whether these would be ok or if they would need to be replaced.

   iii.         Asked whether priority was being given to those tenants who had previously been required to shield to undertake their outstanding gas servicing.

  iv.         Asked if leaseholders refused to upgrade their fire doors would that adversely affect/negate their contents insurance.

    v.         Asked whether the fire safety works would be completed on time given the delays incurred as a result of lockdown and asked whether a wider pool of contractors were required in order to get the works completed on time.

 

The Head of Housing Maintenance and Assets said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         Leaseholders had been contacted regarding fire door replacements and they had the ability to be able to order a replacement as part of the programme if they wanted. 12% of leaseholders had asked for a quote and 20% of leaseholders had said that they did not require a quotation. Once the details of the new Fire Safety Bill have been approved we will be in a better position to understand the changes to requirements and enforcement powers.

    ii.         There were 87 people who required a gas service.  The Council did not hold information about whether these tenants have a requirement to shield or self-isolate and officers were contacting all residents to try and work through the outstanding services and arrange an appointment.  Officers were working to Government guidance and would make every effort to be able to access properties and would keep records / risk assessments if they were unable to gain access to a property.

   iii.         Officers agreed to investigate what the position would be if leaseholders refused to upgrade their fire doors and the impact on their insurance.

  iv.         Confirmed that works were programmed until March 2021 and the current contractors had indicated they have capacity to undertake the fire safety work and any delays would be because of either a further lockdown or the ability to be able to access properties.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously 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: Lynn Bradley


24/09/2020 - Tenancy, Hoarding & Rechargeable Works Policies ref: 5162    Recommendations Approved

1. Housing Scrutiny Committee are asked to delegate authority to the Strategic Director in regard to any changes to the Tenancy Policy following the upcoming review of Local Housing Allowance rent setting
2. To approve the Hoarding Policy
3. To approve the Rechargeable Works Policy

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness

Decision published: 02/12/2020

Effective from: 24/09/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

This report presented the following Cambridge City Council (CCC) policies which had been updated for the Housing Scrutiny Committee’s approval: Tenancy Policy (2020-23), Rechargeable Works Policy (2020), Hoarding Policy (2020).

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved the Tenancy Policy (2020-23), Rechargeable Works Policy (2020) and Hoarding Policy (2020) as attached 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 Policy and Performance Officer (Housing Services).

 

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

      i.         The Committee welcomed the clear policy on Hoarding, and noted the involvement and advice received from Lulu Agate (Tenant rep) in compiling this report.

    ii.         Asked when an enforced clearance would arise under the Hoarding Policy and whether this was few and far between.

   iii.         Asked what training an officer who made assessments under the Hoarding Policy had and if referrals were done with the individual’s consent.

  iv.         Tenant representatives confirmed that there was training available regarding hoarding as they had attended some training on hoarding.

    v.         Asked whether there was any discretion regarding the rechargeable works policy as tenants might consider some works to be urgent and request an urgent call out and incur costs but the council may not consider the works to be urgent.

  vi.         Asked whether the policies would be publicised if they were approved.

 

The Policy and Performance Officer (Housing Services) and the Head of Housing said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         Under the Hoarding Policy if the tenant was not high risk then officers would work with the tenant for a 6-month period. There was a level of officer discretion before enforcement action was undertaken. If however there were health and safety concerns then there would be a multi-agency intervention and officers would then start enforcement. 

    ii.         A referral under the Hoarding Policy was usually done at the same time as a safeguarding referral. Criteria for assessments were set out in a County Council protocol and this protocol was widely used by other local authorities. 

   iii.         There would be screening / triaging of emergency works before works were undertaken.

  iv.         Confirmed that if the policies were approved then these would be publicised including in the ‘Open Door’ 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.

 

 

Lead officer: Sally Norman


24/09/2020 - Purchase of Affordable Housing at Histon Road ref: 5169    Recommendations Approved

Allocation of £1,513,000 for the purchase of 7x new build affordable homes at The Mews, Histon Road.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness

Decision published: 02/12/2020

Effective from: 24/09/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The report seeks approval for a capital budget to purchase 7 affordable units from Laragh Homes, for rent as Council homes. These will consist of the following: 6 x 2 bed, 4 person Flats and 1 x 2 bed, 4 person House

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Approved the purchase of 7 new Council homes at the Mews, Histon Road and delegated authority to the Strategic Director to approve contract terms with Laragh Homes/LLP in respect of this transaction.

ii.             Approve a total budget of £1,513,000 to enable the development of 7 homes at the Mews, Histon Road.

 

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.

 

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


24/09/2020 - Procurement of Energy Efficiency Works to Council Houses 2020 ref: 5163    Recommendations Approved

Approve the issue of tenders and, following evaluation of tenders, authorise the Strategic Director (following consultation with Executive Councillor, Chair and Spokes of the Committee) to award a contract to a contractor to carry out energy efficiency works and associated repair works to Council houses.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness

Decision published: 02/12/2020

Effective from: 24/09/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

As part of a programme of energy efficiency improvements to the Council's housing stock it is planned to install external wall insulation and solar panels to Council properties in the Arbury ward.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Approved the use of the EEM solid wall insulation framework to directly call off and award contract(s) to Cornerstone (East Anglia) Limited to carry out energy efficiency improvements to Council dwellings. Phase 1 - Seventy properties in 20/21. Phase 2 - Seventy properties in 21/22

 

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 Maintenance and Assets and the Asset Manager.

 

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

      i.         Asked whether the energy rating of the properties could be improved further and what percentage of the energy ratings data was estimated and what percentage came from actual data.

    ii.         Noted that due to the fabric of the buildings, it was not easy to improve the energy efficiency of the buildings but it was a challenge that could be met.

   iii.         Similar works had been undertaken in East Chesterton and residents were pleased with those works.

 

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

      i.         It was hoped that the energy ratings of the properties could be improved from a D rating to a B rating however this would depend on the orientation of the properties and whether solar panels were suitable to be installed.  The Council had approximately 3000 energy performance certificates (EPC ratings) which was just under 50% of the housing stock.

 

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


24/09/2020 - Disposal of HRA Land ref: 5171    Recommendations Approved

Approval to dispose of a small block of HRA land in the City to allow development of the site.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness

Decision published: 02/12/2020

Effective from: 24/09/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report set out a proposal regarding the disposal of HRA land.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

      i.         Approved Officer’s recommendation

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Scrutiny Committee resolved to exclude members of the public from the meeting on the grounds that, if they were present, there would be disclosure to them of information defined as exempt from publication by virtue of paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Lead officer: Catherine Buckle


24/09/2020 - Update on the Programme to Build new Council Homes Funded Through the Combined Authority ref: 5166    Recommendations Approved

Regular update on the delivery of the 500 new council homes.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness

Decision published: 02/12/2020

Effective from: 24/09/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

This report provides an update on the programme to deliver 500 Council homes with funding from the Combined Authority.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Noted the continued progress on the delivery of the Combined Authority programme.

ii.             Noted the funding structure for the Combined Authority programme.

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.

 

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

      i.         There was usually a shortage of accessible homes so they were pleased that 5% of houses would be accessible homes.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 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


24/09/2020 - Orchard Park L2 ref: 5170    Recommendations Approved

To approve a capital budget to develop a new build housing scheme to planning submission stage. The scheme is based on the Orchard Park site recently acquired by CCC. The scheme includes Council rented units available for purchase by HRA.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness

Decision published: 02/12/2020

Effective from: 24/09/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The report sought approval for a capital budget to purchase 30 affordable units from Cambridge Investment Partnership (CIP), to be let as Council rented homes. The report also set out the general fund investment and potential returns on this investment and the key elements of the CIP development proposal including a summary of the investment plan

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Approved the purchase of 30 new Council homes on the site at the cost of £5,850,000 and include an overall budget in the HRA for the scheme Orchard Park L2 of £6,207,000.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing and the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

i.               Approved the indicative proposed investment plan for L2 outlined in confidential Appendix 3, with the high-level commitments associated with the General Fund and HRA. The investment plan will be refined in line with final project plans post planning permission determined and approved by the CIP Board with the Councils funding built into the relevant budget setting 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 Housing Development Agency.

 

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

      i.         Asked that sufficient space was provided for cargo bike parking and also to ensure there were car club spaces. Also questioned biodiversity provision on the site.

    ii.         Questioned the housing mix which included 5 x 1 bed studio flats.

   iii.         Asked if people with a Cambridge connection would be able to live in the properties.

 

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

      i.         The bike stores were designed with some provision for cargo bikes but she would need to check exactly how many spaces were provided.  Biodiversity had been considered and they were looking to have sedum (green) roofs and to improve the biodiversity provision of the open space. Two car club spaces were included but if there was a higher demand then more could be put in.

    ii.         There weren’t any studio flats in the current programme but after consultation with the Head of Housing it was agreed that some 1 bed studio flats might be appropriate here.

   iii.         As the development was within the South Cambridgeshire District Council boundary there would need to be an agreement with them about nomination rights to the houses.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor for Housing approved the recommendation 2.1.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources approved the recommendation 2.2.

 

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

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.

 

 

Lead officer: Jim Pollard


24/09/2020 - East Barnwell (One Public Estate) ref: 5167    Recommendations Approved

To approve high level masterplanning options prepared by consultants for the East Barnwell area, and approve further local stakeholder engagement. The work aims to develop and help deliver the Council's ambitions for the area as expressed in the Local Plan.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness

Decision published: 02/12/2020

Effective from: 24/09/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

This report sets out work that has been carried out towards developing a masterplan for the East Barnwell area within Abbey Ward. This work has been supported by the One Public Estate programme.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Noted the progress on developing a masterplan for East Barnwell and the Interim report.

ii.             Approved the development of further engagement with stakeholders and the second stage consultation process.

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.

 

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

      i.         This was a positive change in East Barnwell and was well overdue, noted that there had been one round of consultation and would encourage further consultation.

    ii.         Noted that this development seemed to be looking towards a different source of funding for regeneration compared to the Marleigh development (which would develop 1300 new houses close by). Questioned what redevelopment the East Barnwell community might see as a result of the Marleigh development through s106 agreement funding.  Also noted that the McDonalds site would be difficult to acquire and regenerate on Newmarket Road but asked officers to liaise with McDonalds.

   iii.         Referred to p251 and p276 of the agenda which contained an exert of the local plan detailing the area which would be regenerated at the intersection of Newmarket Road and Barnwell Road. Questioned whether some of the open space (bowling green, tennis court) was protected open space as it appeared to be shown as brownfield land on one of the plans.

  iv.         Queried whether the Marleigh development was within the city council boundary.

    v.         Questioned what parking provision would be put on the site if garages were removed.

  vi.         Asked for the open space to be fairly distributed across the site and a commitment that the open space would be accessible and close to the new development.

 

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

      i.         He had had some meetings with the developers of the Marleigh development to try and ensure that the sites would be integrated but a lot of the s106 provisions arising from the Marleigh development would be delivered within the Marleigh development. There was some scope for additional open space and how this was used.  Further discussions with the developer, residents and stakeholders could be held to discuss how this could come together.  He was aware of the transport issues concerning McDonalds on Newmarket Road as these had arisen through discussions with the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) and their Eastern Access Project. Further discussion with stakeholders was required.

    ii.         Part of the open space area referred to was protected open space. Access to the open space was limited at the moment.  The policy provided for the re-provision of open space, but consideration needed to be given to how the open space could be re-configured to make better use of it.  Feedback from residents about the accessibility of the open space was important and would need further consultation.

   iii.         Confirmed that a small part of the Marleigh development was within the city council boundary.

  iv.         This was the starting point of the project for change and regeneration. When the consultation was carried out there were strong views about accessibility and the cost of public transport and concerns about parking.  These issues would have to be addressed when a formal proposal was brought forward.

 

The Executive Councillor responded that this was the start of the process and it was important that residents were involved within the process. He asked the Senior Housing Development Manager to provide the Committee with an update on the County Council’s proposals regarding the community centre.

 

The Senior Housing Development Manager said that they wanted to ensure that the community centre was delivered, they were not looking to create a hurdle to slow down the provision of the community centre. There were a number of challenges, but they had been working with the Local Planning Authority and the County Council to develop a Statement of Principles, which was a framework for development in the area.

 

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 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: Jim Pollard


24/09/2020 - Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Medium Term Financial Strategy ref: 5164    Recommendations Approved

Approval of latest financial assumptions for the HRA financial forecasts, of any in year budgetary changes for the HRA and of the approach to setting the budget for 2021/21.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness

Decision published: 02/12/2020

Effective from: 24/09/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) provided an opportunity to review the assumptions incorporated as part of the longer-term financial planning process, recommending any changes in response to new legislative requirements, variations in external economic factors and amendments to service delivery methods, allowing incorporation into budgets and financial forecasts at the earliest opportunity.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing (part 1):

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

a)   Financial assumptions as detailed in Appendix B of the document.

b)   2020/21 revenue budgets and future year forecasts as introduced in Section 5, resulting from changes in financial assumptions and the financial consequences of change and the need to respond to unavoidable pressures, including the impact of the coronavirus pandemic, as introduced in Section 5, detailed in Appendix D and D (1) of the document and summarised in Appendices G (1) and G (2).

    ii.         Delegated authority to the Strategic Director to be in a position to confirm that the authority can renew its investment partner status with Homes England.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing (part 2) to recommend to Council to:

   iii.         Approve proposals for changes in existing housing capital budgets, as introduced in Sections 6 and 7 and detailed in Appendix E of the document, with the resulting position summarised in Appendix H, for decision at Council on 22 October 2020.

  iv.         Approve the revised funding mix for the delivery of the Housing Capital Programme, recognising the latest assumptions for the use of Devolution Grant, Right to Buy Receipts, HRA Resources, Major Repairs Allowance, Section 106 Funding and HRA borrowing.

    v.         Extend the existing delegated authority to the Strategic Director in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Housing to approve use of Council land as sites for rough sleeper next steps POD’s on an individual basis based on the criteria as set out in the Housing Development Options for Homeless People report to Housing Scrutiny Committee in January 2020.

 

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:

        i.       Corrected an error in the report on pages 87 and 126 where the void assumption had been increased from 1% to 1.2% in the earlier modelling but this had been returned to the previous 1% but had not been corrected within the text in the report. 

      ii.        Referred to p133 of the agenda and appendix E which showed that extra resource had been allocated for fire door investment in relation to the committee’s discussion regarding the estates and facilities service review and compliance update. (See minute reference 20/31/HSC).

 

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

      i.         Noted that the white paper on planning may have an impact on affordable housing in the future.

    ii.         Queried the use of the consumer price index (CPI) within the report and noted that the implications of the covid-19 pandemic could impact assumptions for future years.

   iii.         Noted that reserves had been used to fill the gap where there were rent arrears to avoid the council having to consider cutting services to tenants.  Asked whether rent arrears had increased over the last 6 months.

  iv.         Queried what a budget virement was and asked if a list of definitions for acronyms could be provided to assist in understanding details in financial reports. 

 

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

      i.         Rent arrears had been extrapolated up until the end of the year, if any assumptions were needed in respect for future years impact, this would be picked up in the January 2021 Housing Revenue Account Budget Setting Report.

    ii.         The Council was governed by a rent standard and were only allowed to increase rent up to CPI plus 1% measured using CPI at the preceding September.  If the rate of the CPI in September 2020 was different to that assumed then this would have a direct impact on the income assumptions made within the MTFS. The impact of the covid-19 pandemic had meant that more people had been forced to claim benefits however she felt that prudent assumptions had been made in respect of income for the current year.  Officers were actively working with tenants to ensure that they claimed the benefits that they were entitled to.  The sums incorporated into the MTFS assume that the council build houses in the new programme to Passivhaus standards, but the ability to do this would be dependent upon the constraints of each site as it is identified and brought forward for decision. If the Council were to build to higher standards initially then the council would not be able to deliver the number of affordable houses that they hoped to build. There is however, a clear aspiration to move to build to net zero carbon over the life of the programme, again dependent on site constraints.

   iii.         Rent arrears had increased by £500,000 over the past 6 months however the rate of increase had stabilised recently. The adjustment made to the MTFS was prudent, but a further full lockdown could have an additional impact.

  iv.         A budget virement was when money was moved or reallocated from one budget to another within the same financial year, with officers having delegated authority to do this in some cases.  Any capital budget virements are shown in the MTFS for transparency.  Agreed an acronyms definition section would be included within the January Budget Setting Report.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse recommendations 2.1 and 2.2.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 to endorse recommendations 2.3 - 2.5.

 

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: Julia Hovells


24/09/2020 - Colville Road Phase 3 ref: 5168    Recommendations Approved

To approve new build housing (estate regeneration) scheme at Colville Road. This is the third scheme in this area and is adjacent to the previous two.


The scheme requires a capital budget to progress up to planning application stage and approval to commence consultation with tenants, leaseholders and commercial tenants.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness

Decision published: 02/12/2020

Effective from: 24/09/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The report seeks approval of a capital budget for the scheme, based on the indicative capacity study which has been undertaken for the site and the outline appraisals referenced in this report, and for the delivery route to be adopted

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.               Approved that the scheme be brought forward with an indicative capital budget of £11,103,200 to cover all site assembly, construction costs, professional fees and further associated fees, to deliver a scheme which meets the identified housing need in Cambridge City.

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 and sizes outlined in this report.

iii.            Approved that, subject to Council approval of the budget,  delegated authority be given to the Executive Cllr 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.

iv.           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.

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

vi.           Approved a delegation to the Section 151 Officer, in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Strategy and Resources and the Executive Councillor for Housing, to approve the most appropriate valuation basis, funding route and accounting treatment for the value of the commercial units being provided as part of the development of Colville 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 Head of Housing Development Agency.

 

Cherry Hinton Ward Councillor Dryden commented:

i.               Supported the scheme and asked for a meeting to be held with residents, particularly those whose homes were set to be demolished if the recommendations were approved. Noted that officers had held meetings with some of the businesses.

 

Cherry Hinton Ward Councillor Ashton commented:

i.               Thanked officers for their work on the project. Was pleased that the development was solely for council housing and was not going to be sold off for private development.  Expressed concerns on behalf of existing tenants about where they would be moved to during the construction phase.

ii.             Shops were used in Cherry Hinton, there were no vacant shop units on the High Street. Residents had expressed their concerns about what would happen to them and he noted there were opportunities for the shops to be relocated within Cherry Hinton. Asked for consideration to be given to locating temporary portacabins on open space to keep local businesses in Cherry Hinton.

 

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

      i.         Referred to page 290 of the agenda and noted that the council was still not aiming for net zero carbon development.

 

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

      i.         Subject to the decision of the committee and Executive Councillor, meetings could be arranged with residents and consideration would be given to the most appropriate way to re-house residents affected by the development.

    ii.         Officers had been working with colleagues in Property Services and consideration would be given to temporary facilities for businesses to use.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 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: Jim Pollard


24/09/2020 - New Council Housing Programme ref: 5165    Recommendations Approved

Approval of a plan to deliver an additional 1,000 Council homes, building on the success of the 500 programme. This report will include newly identified sites, delivery models and funding options.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Housing and Homelessness

Decision published: 02/12/2020

Effective from: 24/09/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The report set out key issues for the committee to consider in formulating a new Housing Programme. The report outlined the strategic objectives of the programme, the key assumptions that had been used as a starting point and steps to investigate potential opportunities to move the programme forward. The report is in line with the provisions and assumptions in the HRA MTFS report. 

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Housing

i.        Approved the bringing forward of a development programme to provide new housing in 2022-32 by the Council.

ii.      Approve the strategic guidance for the aims of the programme set out in Section 4 of this report.

iii.     Approve the allocation of £1m to the 2020/21 budget and £2m to the 2021/22 budget to allow early investment in feasibility, site investigation and land assembly from the overall resource incorporated in the MTFS for the delivery of this programme.

iv.    Approve the proposal to report progress on development of the new programme to Housing Scrutiny Committee in January 2021.

 

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 Strategic Director (FB).

 

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

      i.         The delivery of 10 x 1 bed flats to accommodate rough sleepers was good and was looking forward to the pods being located in East Chesterton.

    ii.         Noted the need for decent housing and queried the council’s different investments.

   iii.         Questioned what plans were going to be put in place for tenants when existing sites were redeveloped.

  iv.         Noted that some market housing may need to be built on sites to enable the development of affordable housing. Also asked whether affordable housing would be pepper potted across the development to build a mixed sustainable community.

    v.         Referred to paragraph 5.2 of the officer’s report on page 158 of the agenda which said that building zero carbon homes could add an extra 40% to build costs and noted that the cost implications of such development could mean a reduction in the number of houses which could be built.

 

The Strategic Director (FB) and the Head of Housing said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.         The Council had been prudent with its investments, there were different reasons for investing in the commercial sector and in housing.  Commercial investments ensured that facilities in retail were still available and could attract returns which could be used to support other council services. Investment in housing could be used to support more investment in affordable housing.

    ii.         When existing sites were considered for redevelopment a detailed options analysis would be undertaken.  This would consider the current status of the site, past and current maintenance costs, the EPC ratings and whether renovation was a better option.

   iii.         All homes would be built as sustainably as the site constraints would allow. Building mixed and balanced communities was at the forefront of officer's minds.

  iv.         Each site would be assessed on an individual basis, there may be some sites which could not support net zero carbon development.

 

The Executive Councillor commented:

        i.       That when existing sites were considered for redevelopment tenants would be consulted to ensure that they were fully involved, the council had gained valuable experience in this area over the last couple of years.

 

Councillor Martinelli proposed and Councillor McGerty seconded the following amendment to recommendation 2.1 (additional text underlined):

 

2.1         Approved the bringing forward of a development programme to provide new housing 2022-32 by the Council, on a net zero carbon basis.

 

Councillor Martinelli stated that they did not want housing development to add to the carbon footprint, the council should be a nationwide leader on this issue.  He also supported the pod housing scheme.

 

Lulu Agate commented that a lot of people worried about climate change and expensive heating bills. She knew a lot of tenants who would be in support of the amendment to recommendation 2.1.

 

The Executive Councillor commented that any proposal now to go to net zero carbon would require additional financing and could result in fewer homes being built. The increasing costs would call into question the ability of the council to be able to deliver the number of homes that they wanted to. There could be technical or geographical limits to deliver sustainable housing on a particular site.

 

Councillor Ashton queried the financial impact of the proposed amendment.

 

On a show of hands the amendment was lost by 3 votes to 5.

 

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


06/07/2020 - Interim Update to Medium Term Financial Strategy ref: 5139    Recommendations Approved

To approve:
- Changes to 2020/21 General Fund revenue and capital budgets to address financial pressures resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic; and
- An interim update to the General Fund Medium Term Financial Strategy

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation

Decision published: 24/09/2020

Effective from: 06/07/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The report presented an overview of the impact of the Coronavirus emergency in the Spring of 2020 on Cambridge City Council’s budget for 2020/21. It set out how estimates had been made and the uncertainties within those estimates. It lists the financial support that central government has provided to the council and proposes several actions that the council can take to balance its budget in 2020/21.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources to recommend to Council to:

      i.          Note the forecast impact of the Covid-19 crisis on the council’s finances.

     ii.          Approve changes to the 2020/21 GF revenue and capital budgets as set out in Section 7 and Appendices 1 and 2 of the officer’s report.

   iii.          Approve the use of earmarked reserves, as set out in Section 7 and Appendix 3 of the officer’s report.

   iv.          Note the revised savings requirements identified in Section 8 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 Finance.

 

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

      i.          Asked what priorities were being set and what the areas were that the council might stop spending on.

     ii.          Questioned if the council was looking to make cuts before they were required. What processes were in place to reverse these cuts if government funding came through to the council.

   iii.          Questioned what the process for was reviewing the reserve target if required.

   iv.          Questioned if funding had been cut in the right areas.

    v.          Stated it was clear why some projects had been cancelled, others had been set as lower priority or cut and do not need to be completed this year. However, there needed to be a clear definition between the two as it was not clear for all the projects referenced, the reason why this decision had been taken and by who. This information was required to undertake accurate scrutiny before the next meeting of full council.

   vi.          It was important the public sector invested and spent finances to support the local economy especially as there was a prospect of additional government funding designed to support local authorities’ loss of income. The council were able to do just this. 

 vii.          The council had stopped work at a time when the community and local economy needed it most, if the projects stopped it could be too late to reverse the decision.

viii.          Noted there was a few partnerships working projects (notably the Greater Cambridge Partnership) where funding cuts had been made.  Questioned if these projects had been postponed as those partners had decided they could not be delivered due to COVID-19, or had they been negotiated with both parties or was it the council’s decision.

   ix.          Asked for the status on the youth liaison officer.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Items that had been retained in the budget were anti-poverty, climate change, biodiversity, homelessness to maintain these services during this difficult time.

     ii.          There had been items which had been deferred until the following year as the work could not be carried out during the pandemic; other deferred items had been retained in the budget while others would be considered in the new year if financially viable.

   iii.          The next round of government funding which had recently been announced amounted to £500 million for local authorities to cover additional expenditure which met certain criteria. There would not be assistance with property income losses.

   iv.           With regards to car parking, the council would have to pay the first 5% of the losses and the government three quarters of the remainder. This could give approximately £2 million if the council met all conditions, however, detailed guidance was not yet available.

    v.          Funding from government received on homelessness amounted to £24,750 (additional cost to the council was £1.2million).

   vi.          In total a £1.3million grant had been received to date.

 vii.          If government funding were more than anticipated, it would be possible to review the council’s reserves and adjust the figures again.

viii.          Stated there were far more imponderables on the income side and reminded the committee there would be no assistance with the commercial property incomes. There was a variety of fees across the council which needed to be recovered across the council. It was uncertain if these costs would recover from government and the council would have to pay the first 5%.

   ix.          Projects postponed were capital schemes funded from revenue, therefore these could be moved back and forth from one year to the next without much issue if the work could be completed.

    x.          Acknowledged there were some climate change and biodiversity items which had been deferred but much of these works could not be restarted this year. The doubling of the wildflower meadows should already be completed.

   xi.          The council had planned to spend £100,000 on its tree programme, but this funding had been spread over a longer period.

 xii.          As the government had agreed a further tranche of funding to the GCP and the council did not have the financial resources available, it seemed sensible the contribution to the GCP could be reduced without hindering the work they were undertaking.

xiii.          The amount of money that the council allocated to the GCP was related to the new homes bonus which had been reduced.

xiv.          Could not provide a response to the query regarding the youth liaison officer but would ask that this was provided outside of the meeting.

 

The Committee unanimously resolved to:

      i.          Note the forecast impact of the Covid-19 crisis on the council’s finances.

The Committee resolved 4 votes to 0 to:                        

     ii.          Approve changes to the 2020/21 GF revenue and capital budgets as set out in Section 7 and Appendices 1 and 2 of the officer’s report.

The Committee unanimously resolved to:                        

   iii.          Approve the use of earmarked reserves, as set out in Section 7 and Appendix 3 of the officer’s report.

The Committee resolved 4 votes to 0 to:                        

   iv.          Note the revised savings requirements identified in Section 8 of the officer’s report.

 

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: Caroline Ryba


06/07/2020 - 2019/20 General Fund Revenue and Capital Outturn, Carry Forwards and Significant Variances ref: 5138    Recommendations Approved

(i) Recommend to Council to approve carry forward requests for revenue funding from 2019/20 to 2020/21 as detailed in report appendix.
(ii) Recommend to Council to approve capital funding rephasing from 2019/20 to 2020/21 as detailed in report appendix.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation

Decision published: 24/09/2020

Effective from: 06/07/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The report presented a summary of the 2019/20 outturn position (actual income and expenditure) for all portfolios, compared to the final budget for the year.  The position for revenue and capital was reported and variances from budgets were highlighted.  Specific requests to carry forward funding from budget underspends in 2019/20 were reported.

 

This was the first year that one combined General Fund outturn report covering all portfolios was produced for scrutiny at Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources to recommend to council to:

i.      Approve carry forward requests totalling £1,070,060 revenue funding from 2019/20 to 2020/21, as detailed in Appendix C of the officer’s report.

ii.    Carry forward requests of £27,634k capital resources from 2019/20 to 2020/21 to fund rephased net capital spending, as detailed in Appendix D of the officer’s report.

iii.   To fund the overspend of two capital schemes – Lammas Land Car Parking and Barnwell Business Park remedial projects totalling £29,757 from reserves.

iv.  Transfer the Bateman Street tree replacement underspend of £17k to the Environmental Improvements programme – South.

v.    Transfer the underspend of £24k on Grafton East car park essential roof repair project to Structural Holding Repairs & Lift Refurbishment - Queen Anne project which is renamed Car Park Structural Holding Repairs.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

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

      i.          It was important part to note the carry forwards in Appendix C, particularly reference 4, tourism cost centre, regarding Visit Cambridge and Beyond. There was reference to a report being prepared for the end of June which had not been seen and questioned if there were further financial costs that the committee should be aware of.

     ii.          Requested information to the carry forward for the refit carbon reduction projects and queried if this had been delayed from the previous year.

   iii.          Asked for an update on the vacancy for the cycling and walking officer.

   iv.          Requested further information on the reason for large variances for the Crematorium (Appendix A p184) and asked what was creating the greater loss, the impact of the closure of the  A14 or the increase competition in the general area.

    v.          Asked if officers would appraise the performance of Cambridge Live as it was difficult to evaluate the accounts which were no longer separate now the organisation was back under the remit of the council.

   vi.          Questioned what the sum of money was the council had allocated to deal with the original bailout of Cambridge Live and where on the officer’s report was this shown,

 vii.          Enquired if an explanation on the significant overspend regarding Environment Improvements (p136) could be provided.

viii.          Asked if the Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources would comment on the 57.5% failure rate to deliver on the capital programme.

   ix.          Paid credit to garage services and car parking services.

    x.          Welcomed the improvement under the refuse and recycling collection and the surplus by the Bereavement Services and Town Hall lettings.

   xi.          Questioned why there was areas of overspend and underspend in the open spaces’ portfolio.

 

The Head of Finance and Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          The carry forward for the refit carbon reduction would have been carried for a purpose.

     ii.          A detailed answer would be given outside of the meeting on the Visit Cambridge and Beyond report and Cycling and Walking Officer as this could not be provided.

   iii.          Referenced p144 of the agenda pack provided a response to the Environment Improvements question. This confirmed a lack of recharging income on officer’s time against a budget which required reviewing as it had been set higher than the potential income that was possible.

   iv.          Suggested the staff (environment improvements) in the team were not sufficient to generate the income suggested in the budget. This was a significant imbalance and would be investigated further in the budget process.

    v.          Under Culture and Communities, p143, the following headings - Corn Exchange and Guildhall, City Events and Folk festival and Cambridge Live when added together represented Cambridge Live that was the external organisation.  The variances added together showed a figure of £100,000 overspend.

   vi.          Reminded the committee that Cambridge Live was taken over by the council at the start of the year with a considerable amount of work required to be done with the organisation.

 vii.          Work had been undertaken by officers to change the structure of Cambridge Live which would help to bring down the deficit. The COVID-19 pandemic had severely impacted on this work and the finances required additional attention. Officers were wating to find out what funding was available to support Cambridge Live.

viii.          £750,000 had been allocated to cover the cost of bringing Cambridge Live back into the council.  Dealing with the deficit on the balance sheet which came into the council and developing structures to improve ways of running the organisation, legal advice, accountancy advice and audit. The money had almost been spent.

   ix.          Before COVID-19 the Culture and Community Manager was confident that Cambridge Live was ‘back on track’.

    x.          Noted the request for the breakdown of how the £750,000 had been spent and what was left and would be given outside of the meeting.

   xi.          The crematorium had been significantly impacted by the upgrade of the A14 which had contributed to three quarters of the loss revenue. There was an ongoing claim for loss of income regarding the A14 upgrade.

 xii.          Prior to COVID-19 officers had put together a work plan to compete with the new competition, offering a low-cost funeral service and the introduction of a café on site which would increase income and match the competition.

xiii.          £13million of the £27million underspend was in CIP loans with £2.8million in bonds; all of which was for development and outside the council’s control. If these figures were taken out of the underspend, the total was still significant but not as large at first glance. 

xiv.          There were variables in the open spaces budget each with a specific reason as referenced on p144 of the agenda pack; different businesses had been impacted differently by COVID-19.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resource said the following:

      i.          The original budget for Environment Improvements was higher and there had been an underspend. Could not comment why it had been reduced as much as it had.

     ii.          Further information on Cambridge Live could be read on p142 of the agenda pack. The folk festival did not have the ticket sales anticipated when the council took over and the festival would not be taking place this year.

   iii.          Agreed it was not satisfactory that there was an underspend on capital and this needed to be looked into further.

   iv.          Expressed thanks to the finance department for compiling such a comprehensive report while all working from home.

 

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 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: Caroline Ryba


06/07/2020 - Annual Treasury Management Outturn Report 2019/20 ref: 5137    Recommendations Approved

Recommend the report to Council, which includes the Council's actual Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2019/20.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation

Decision published: 24/09/2020

Effective from: 06/07/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Council was required by regulations issued under the Local Government Act 2003, to produce an annual treasury report reviewing treasury management activities and the actual prudential and treasury indicators for each financial year.

 

This report met the requirements of both the CIPFA Code of Practice on Treasury Management (the Code) and the CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities (the Prudential Code) in respect of 2018/19. Both these publications have been revised by CIPFA and references to these documents are to the 2017 Editions.

 

During the 2019/20 the minimum requirements were that Council should receive:

- An annual strategy in advance of the year

- A mid-year treasury update report and;

- An annual review following the end of the year describing the activity compared to the strategy.

 

In line with the Code of Practice on Treasury Management all treasury management reports have been presented to Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee and to Full Council.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources to recommend to Council to:

i.                Approve the report with the Council’s actual Prudential and Treasury Indicators for 2019/20

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Head of Finance.

 

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: Caroline Ryba


06/07/2020 - Service Review: Revenues and Benefits ref: 5136    Recommendations Approved

To reduce the size of the service, following a reducing in benefits workload arising from introduction of Universal Credit
To consult staff on options.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation

Decision published: 24/09/2020

Effective from: 06/07/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The introduction of Universal Credit meant that new working-age claimants, or claimants who have certain specified changes in circumstances, no longer claim Housing Benefit from the Council, but claim Universal Credit (UC) from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), which includes an amount for housing costs. 

 

The report brought forward recommendations following a review of the Revenues and Benefits service in the light of this change.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

i.                To restructure the Revenues and Benefits service, as detailed in the officer’s of the 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 Strategic Director.

 

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

      i.          Queried what if any impact the changes would have on staff; would staff be TUPE’d (Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Employment) across.

     ii.          Requested reassurance that staff would be supported during this period.

   iii.          Asked if the council could be sure that standards would not drop supporting the vulnerable residents in the city.

   iv.          Indicated that the decision was inevitable

    v.          Acknowledged the hard work and dedicated staff that the council had and expressed disappointment that the changes would have on them.

 

The Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’ questions:

      i.          Staff would not be TUPE’d as the Department of Working Pensions (DWP) had hired additional staff to undertake the additional work. Therefore, there could be potential redundancies.

     ii.          When roles were redundant the council did try to redeploy staff within the council and would work with staff to look at the opportunities available.

   iii.          Staff would be consulted and supported throughout the process.

   iv.          The Council did not have the power to redeploy staff to external agencies.

    v.          The work to support vulnerable people with their housing cost would be dealt with by the DWP through the universal credit scheme.

   vi.          The council had a strategic interest to ensure that residents had accessed their benefits, offering financial advice through inclusion workers and council funding to external agencies such as citizens advice bureau.

 

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: Suzanne Hemingway


06/07/2020 - Cambridge City Council Apprenticeship Strategy 2020 ref: 5135    Recommendations Approved

To consider the proposed Cambridge City Council Apprenticeship Strategy 2020.

 

To strengthen and build on the current successes of the Council’s Apprenticeship Scheme, by broadening the types of apprenticeships available to existing employees and new apprentice recruits. 

 

For Council services to plan for and utilise apprenticeships more to support succession planning, recruiting to hard-to-fill vacancies, and attracting more younger people to the work for the Council.

 

To consider a pilot programme beginning in 2020/21 which would see the transference of up to 10% p.a. (approx. £12,000) of the Council’s apprenticeship levy to local SMEs, charitable and not for profit organisations.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation

Decision published: 24/09/2020

Effective from: 06/07/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The report proposed a new revised Cambridge City Council ‘Apprenticeship Strategy 2020’ to replace the existing Apprenticeship Strategy approved at the Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Committee in March 2017.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources

i.      Approved the proposed measures for a revised Cambridge City Council Apprenticeship Strategy 2020.

ii.    Agreed to consider a new provision for the transference of up to 10% p.a. to local SMEs, charitable and not for profit organisations as a pilot during 2020/21. This could be achieved by either working directly with external organisations or through the exiting schemes such as the Cambridge & Peterborough’s Apprenticeship Levy Pooling Service which supports local business to take on apprentices.

 

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 Organisational Development Manager.

 

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

      i.          Asked how easy it was to find apprentices for these schemes particularly at entry level.

     ii.          Welcomed the move away from using the levy on management apprenticeships.

   iii.          Apprenticeships were going to be difficult for people to find, particularly school leavers in the future, especially in the current conditions.

   iv.          Believed over the next two years the council’s focus on the use of apprenticeships should be coupled with recruitment rather than internal development. The priority for the community at large was for people to enter the labour market. If there was any levy left the remainder could be put into the levy pool and provide support for SME business, charitable and non-profit organisations who had a recruitment plan for sustainable employment.

    v.          Queried when the absolute deadline was to a make a final decision regarding the apprenticeship strategy?

 

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

      i.          Would expect several applicants for each apprenticeship, particularly given the current climate of the job market that COVID-19 had caused.

     ii.          The council’s focus was in three parts, the levy transfer, supporting existing staff and new recruits. No level had been put on support for new recruits and existing staff.

   iii.          The Government allowed 25% of the total levy to be transferred annually, approximately £30,000 could be transferable.  The proposal is to transfer 10% approx. £12,000 p.a.

   iv.          The Council pays £120,000 to £100,000 into the apprenticeship levy annually which lasts two years. This is a rolling programme with each month’s payment expiring after 24 months.

    v.          It would be best to make the decision as soon as possible so that the funds could be transferred.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources responded with the following comments:

    i.            That the apprenticeship levy was for training and not for apprenticeship themselves. Recognising this, the committee should think about the impact on the voluntary sector, SME’s and non-profit organisations who could make use of the levy.

   ii.            Consideration had been given to put 25% immediately into this sector but felt emphasis should be for the city council to develop its own apprentices first. This would allow those organisations the opportunity to develop apprenticeship if appropriate or express an interest. Salary costs would also have to be picked up by the businesses as the levy did not cover this cost.

 iii.            Believed there had an issue in the past in finding the appropriate training scheme for SME’s.

iv.            The work that the levy had been proposed would see an increase in manual trades that traditionally had not been offered and was what the apprenticeship scheme was for. The scheme would be reviewed on a regular basis it could be possible that the transference of the Council’s apprenticeship levy to local businesses, charitable and not for profit organisations could be increased in future.

 

Councillor Bick proposed and Councillor Dalzell seconded an additional recommendation:

 

NOTE the report and proposals

 

RECOMMEND a rethink of the proposed strategy applicable to apprentice starts over the next two years in the light of the post pandemic depression, with a view to emphasising the use of apprenticeships to improve recruitment offers, potentially sharing an increased surplus from the council with local SMEs, charitable and Not For Profit organisations who provide sustainable, recruitment-based business plans

 

AGREE a modified version of the strategy through the procedure for an urgent decision

 

The additional recommendation was lost by 2 votes to 4.

 

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 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: Vince Webb


06/07/2020 - 3Cs Legal and ICT Services and Greater Cambridge - Internal Audit Shared Service - 2019/20 Annual Reports and Partnership Agreement Review ref: 5134    Recommendations Approved

Shared Service Annual reports for 2019/20 for approval by Exec Cllr.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Transformation

Decision published: 24/09/2020

Effective from: 06/07/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The Officer’s report summarised the performance for the 3Cs ICT, Legal Shared Services and the Greater Cambridge Shared Internal Audit Service during 2019/20.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources 

i.                   Noted the content of the annual reports.

ii.    Noted the requirement for renewal of the 3Cs services partnership agreement the principle variations planned

iii.   Delegated authority to the Chief Executive and Strategic Director to finalise and agree the renewed partnership agreement by September 2020, in consultation with Executive Councillor, Chair and Spokes.

 

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 Strategic Director.

 

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

            i.    Asked if consideration had been given to greater shared scrutiny between the authorities, such as meeting virtually. There had been recently been a couple of ICT outages and suggested it could have been resolved more efficiently if all stake holders had been involved.

          ii.    Enquired why the city council’s consumption of legal services was higher than South Cambridgeshire District Council and Huntingdonshire District Council.

 

The Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.         There had been a previous proposal for a shared scrutiny committee. However, there were complications for agreeing the overall decision-making process in line with each authorities’ constitution and the number of member allocations. Therefore, it had been decided not to pursue this further.

ii.       The level and complexity of the services delivered by the city council was currently greater than the other two local authorities therefore more advice and support was required from legal services when dealing with issues such as commercial portfolios.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources made the following comments:

i.                Echoed the technical difficulties that had occurred when investigating a greater scrutiny committee; the executive councillor and scrutiny model used by the City Council was not compatible with the other local authorities.

ii.               Officers across the local authorities had regular debate and communication on the business plans and services. This worked well and there was no need to change.

 

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: Fiona Bryant


06/07/2020 - Combined Authority Update ref: 5133    Recommendations Approved

To enable the Committee to scrutinise the Council's representative on the Combined Authority.

Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for External Partnerships

Decision published: 24/09/2020

Effective from: 06/07/2020

Decision:

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) since the 3 February 2020 meeting of Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships 

Noted the update on issues considered at the meetings of the Combined Authority held on 25 March, 29 April and 3 June 2020.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Chief Executive presented by the Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships.

 

Matter for Decision

The report provided an update on the activities of the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) since the 3 February 2020 meeting of Strategy & Resources Scrutiny Committee.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships 

Noted the update on issues considered at the meetings of the Combined Authority held on 25 March, 29 April and 3 June 2020.

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Chief Executive presented by the Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships.

 

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

i.                Agreed the Mayor’s approach to the transport projects in relation to the Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) was not positive for public accountability or public understanding of the issues that were involved which was regrettable.

ii.               The GCP had just completed their first five years of project delivery and had recently been awarded the next tranche of government funding, therefore the GCP clearly the right organisation to undertake the transport project work.

iii.             Asked if the capital grants scheme had been widely advertised and if the criteria to apply for a grant was clear. It was vital there was transparency to show where and how public money had been allocated, particularly as funds were being dispersed into the private sector.

iv.             Questioned if the Mayor understood the need for affordable housing in Cambridge, any delivery was welcome. 

v.              Highlighted an article in the local press regarding affordable housing being delivered by the Combined Authority Mayor. It also referenced that he had negotiated £100 million as part of the devolution deal. The council had also taken part in the negotiations and believed a proportion of funding had been allocated to the city for affordable housing. Questioned how the income stream was allocated.

vi.             A recent Savills report highlighted the lack of affordable housing in the city; the median house price to median income ratio was 13 times the average income, compared with the national average of 7.8.

vii.           Queried the £40million rolling fund the Combined Authority had, which the same newspaper article referred to.

viii.         Asked how the Mayor decided what the funding criteria was for strategic projects as this did not appear to be clear.  Provided the example of Lancaster Way Roundabout on the outskirts of Ely and noted there were projects that required more urgent works.

ix.             Queried the Mayor’s declarations of interests at meetings at they did not seem to be consistent.

x.              Requested an update on the CAM metro policy.

xi.             Asked for an update on Alconbury Weald as had read the lease was being surrendered.

 

The Executive Councillor for Strategy and External Partnerships and the Strategic Director said the following in response to Members’ questions:

i.        Understood there had been a widespread publicity campaign regarding the grant scheme for the first round. Comments made by the committee overlapped the concern expressed outside of the committee regarding the governance of the business board. It was important for the board to remain accountable and to report on their spending. 

ii.       Having reviewed the grant applications these had been submitted by a diverse selection of businesses.

iii.     The grants awarded were to those organisations who needed the funding to protect jobs.

iv.     The capital grant funding had been linked to the previous growth hub funding in terms of innovation specifically linked to COVID-19, shared by the economic sub-groups and had been promoted very strongly.

v.      Acknowledged the hard work and support that had been undertaken and given during the COVID-19 pandemic by the Combined Authority.

vi.     With regards to the CAM metro it did feel that the Mayor was trying to create ‘banana skins’. The Mayor’s recent actions and comments were not compatible with the Local Transport Plan agreed at the GCP January meeting.

vii.   Suggested the Mayor could be invited to a future meeting of the Strategy and Resources Committee.

viii.     The Alconbury Weald lease was expensive and unnecessary, the Mayor proposed to relocate but no future strategy had been provided where this would be.

ix.        The revolving fund of up to £40million could be used for projects which would achieve an outcome and bring a return.

x.           £10million of the revolving fund had been allocated to a development on Histon Road on the former squash club site, four of the nine units would be affordable homes (£100,000 homes). Up to one thousand people had registered an interest in this scheme.

xi.        Believed that more could be achieved with the revolving fund.

xii.      Questioned the allocation of funding of projects and if the best outcome had been achieved; would suggest working with the committee to look in detail at the work going forward.

xiii.     Suggested that members read the annual finance report to look at the money spent and what had been delivered.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to note the report.

 

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: Antoinette Jackson


26/08/2020 - Draft Pay Policy Statement 2020/21 ref: 5129    Recommendations Approved

To consider the draft Pay Policy Statement 2020/2021.

Decision Maker: Civic Affairs

Decision published: 18/09/2020

Effective from: 26/08/2020

Decision:

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL

Officer Record of Decision

 

What decision(s) has been taken:

To implement the Joint Negotiating Committee for Chief Executives of Local Authorities Pay Award for 2020-21.

 

Who made the decision:

Head of Human Resources

Date decision made: 

26 August 2020

 

Matter for Decision /Wards affected

Decision delegated from Civic Affairs Committee

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

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

   

 

To implement the nationally agreed pay award for chief executives following receipt of notification by circular from the Joint Negotiating Committee for Chief Executives of Local Authorities dated 24 August 2020.

 

 

The pay award for the chief executive level post is determined by national level collective bargaining between the national employers and trade unions. Once agreed at a national level the City Council implements the pay award in accordance with the terms of staff contracts of employment.

 

 

Conflicts of interest and dispensations granted by the Chief Executive:

None.

 

Other Comments:

 

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

 

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

 

Reference:

20/Civ/1

Contact for further information:

Deborah Simpson, Head of Human Resources.

 

 

Decision Maker: Civic Affairs

Decision published: 18/09/2020

Effective from: 26/08/2020

Decision:

 

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL

Officer Record of Decision

 

What decision(s) has been taken:

To implement the National Joint Council Pay Award for 2020-21

Who made the decision:

Head of Human Resources

Date decision made: 

26 August 2020

Matter for Decision /Wards affected

Decision delegated from Civic Affairs Committee

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

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

   

 

To implement the nationally agreed pay award for staff on Bands 1-11 following receipt of notification by circular from the National Joint Council for Local Government Services dated 24 August 2020.

 

 

 

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

 

 

Conflicts of interest and dispensations granted by the Chief Executive:

None.

 

Other Comments:

 

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

 

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

 

Reference:

20/Civ/2

Contact for further information:

Deborah Simpson, Head of Human Resources.

.

 

Decision Maker: Civic Affairs

Decision published: 18/09/2020

Effective from: 26/08/2020

Decision:

 

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL

Officer Record of Decision

 

What decision(s) has been taken:

To implement a pay award for employees on Cambridge Live terms and conditions with effect from 1 April 2020 and a minimum pay rate of £10.00 per hour.

Who made the decision:

Head of Human Resources, following consultation with the Chief Executive and Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources.

Date decision made: 

7 September 2020

Matter for Decision /Wards affected

Decision delegated from Civic Affairs Committee and Council

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

 

 

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

   

To implement a pay award of 2.75% to employees of Cambridge City Council who are on Cambridge Live terms and conditions of employment with effect from 1 April 2020.

 

Following the transfer of staff from Cambridge Live to the Council on 1 April 2019 under TUPE (Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations) we have two sets of employment terms and conditions.

 

Civic Affairs Committee in January 2020 and Council in February 2020 agreed that with effect from 1 April 2020 a pay award mechanism would be introduced for employees on Cambridge Live terms and conditions of employment. This is to be based on comparison to the NJC pay award. Following receipt of notification by circular from the National Joint Council for Local Government Services of the NJC pay award of 2.75% on all pay points, we will now implement a 2.75% pay award to the salary points for employees on Cambridge Live terms and conditions.

 

 

The Council is an accredited Real Living Wage Employer and pays a Cambridge Weighting which is paid as a pay supplement to bring the minimum council pay rate to £10.00 per hour. This is paid as a supplement in addition to the Real Living Wage, currently £9.30 per hour to bring the minimum hourly rate to £10.00.  It is proposed that at the same time as implementing the pay award and back pay to 1 April, now is the most appropriate time to introduce the Cambridge Weighting for employees on Cambridge Live terms and conditions.

 

To apply the Cambridge Weighting of a minimum pay rate of £10.00 per hour, with effect from 1 April 2020 to employees on Cambridge Live terms and conditions of employment. There are 37 employees who will become in scope of the Cambridge Weighting.  Budgetary provision has been made in the 2020/21 financial year.

 

Link to Civic Affairs Report:

https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/documents/s49114/Civic%20Affairs%20Pay%20Policy%20Statement%20report%2029.1.201%2013022020%20Council.pdf

Conflicts of interest and dispensations granted by the Chief Executive:

None.

 

Other Comments:

 

This decision is taken in accordance with the delegated authority from Civic Affairs Committee to the Head of Human Resources, as follows and the agreement of Council on 25 February 2020:

 

Civic Affairs:

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

 

Council 25 February 2020:

Introduce a pay award mechanism with effect from 1 April 2020 for staff on Cambridge Live terms and conditions of employment, based on comparison to the NJC pay award and authority is delegated to the Head of Human Resources to implement any future pay awards, following consultation with the Chief Executive and Executive Councillor for Finance and Resources.

Reference:

20/Civ/3

Contact for further information:

Deborah Simpson, Head of Human Resources.

 

 

Decision Maker: Civic Affairs

Decision published: 18/09/2020

Effective from: 26/08/2020

Decision:

 

CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL

Officer Record of Decision

 

What decision(s) has been taken:

To implement the Joint Negotiating Committee for Chief Officers of Local Authorities Pay Award for 2020-21.

 

Who made the decision:

Chief Executive

Date decision made: 

01 September 2020

Matter for Decision /Wards affected

Decision delegated from Civic Affairs Committee

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

Any alternative options considered and rejected:

   

 

To implement the nationally agreed pay award for chief officers following receipt of notification by circular from the Joint Negotiating Committee for Chief Officers of Local Authorities dated 24 August 2020.

 

 

 

The pay award for the chief officer level posts (Strategic Directors and Heads of Service on HOS grade) is determined by national level collective bargaining between the national employers and trade unions. Once agreed at a national level the City Council implements the pay award in accordance with the terms of staff contracts of employment.

 

 

Conflicts of interest and dispensations granted by the Chief Executive:

The Chief Executive is exercising this decision as the Head of Human Resources has a personal interest in this pay award.

 

Other Comments:

 

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

 

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

 

Reference:

20/Civ/4

Contact for further information:

Antoinette Jackson, Chief Executive

 

 

Lead officer: Deborah Simpson